701–710 of 713 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need Chrome for Netflix anymore; it seems to work fine in current Firefox.
I'll try again soon-ish but I was seeing the netflix home page freeze for 5-10 seconds on open and often going unresponsive which is just intolerable tbh
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: as a longtime Firefox user, I have to restart it every couple day. It still hemmorhages memory and just gets unusable after a while. Even if it's the extension fault, why they aren't sandboxed properly, or even why there eisn't basic reporting about the offenders boggles my mind. Maybe it's because of the API... I find it hard to believe it isn't possible to retrofit some of that on the current design t…
This sounds genuinely odd, could you be using a add-on that is causing a problem ? I leave Firefox open for months on end without problem and with several hundred of tabs open, multiple windows too. I do use a tab unloader, that unloads an inactive tab after a while. Its precisely because of this that other browsers are not suitable for me
Never had such an issue with Chrome, but man FF57 is my new default. SO FAST. I don't care if I need to restart it this thing is awesome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't even get them to persist after restarting FF. :/
Please describe the behaviour you're seeing vs. expecting. Is the session not restoring the URLs in the right container? That sounds like a bug to me. The container names (if you change from default) should be stored in the settings – if not, something is wrong on your machine. If you want to always open some specific URLs on start, pin those tabs.
Also, changing a container's color does not change the color shown on existing tabs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the reminder. I just downloaded the latest FF beta and exiled Chrome to an "only when needed" role. All the back-and-forth about speed and features is understandable, but misses the point that Firefox needs our support if we are to have any real non-proprietary options for what is quickly becoming the base system abstraction layer for most computing.
BTW: if using Android, if FF is not for you, try Brave instead of Chrome. It feels exactly like Chrome (it's Chromium-based), but has a built-in adblocker, tracker blocking, HTTPS everywhere, no nagging to sign in, and does not throw "suggested news" (with no opt-out) upon you. Brave's founder is ex-Mozilla's CEO (Brendan Eich). However latest FF on Android is actually not bad, at least if you have a modern phone (th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i would be using FF on Android if the scrolling was not so crappy. It's pretty terrible :(
... ... What do you mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The signing into an account in chrome is the killer feature for me. I have work and a couple of personal accounts that I have signed in in different browser windows. That allows me to keep things separate (extensions, mail, browsing, bookmarks, etc). How do FF users do this?
The signing into an account in Chrome almost got someone fired at a small customer of mine a few weeks ago. Fortunately they called me first to look into it, I pointed out that the porn bookmarks in question were years old and that since Chrome was signed into a personal account it was pretty likely that the same account had been used by other family members at home. I also wrote this up for the owners to send to the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Browsers are becoming more and more aggressive in protecting the interests of users. Becoming true "User Agents," I really like the built in free VPN that Opera provides. http://www.opera.com/computer/features/free-vpn
This only means that Opera have all your data and can aggregate it in one place.
I switched back to Firefox 54 from Chrome when multiprocess browsing ("Electrolysis") came out of beta. It's been absolutely great. It's fast and I trust and like the nonprofit behind it. And all the extensions I care about are available. My main issue with Chrome was the endless nags to sign in to a Google account, and just generally wanting less dependence on Google. I also like that Firefox has a built in tracking…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Found it: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EW... Section beginning, "My next linguistical suggestion is more rigorous"...
Thanks for finding it. Here's my attempt at a tldr: Teaching with analogy is bad because it robs students of jumps in understanding. By scaffolding new concepts on things they already know they are losing the opportunity to learn how to make cognitive leaps, which is a skill itself. One that Dijkstra believes is is paramount to combatting dictators or zealotry. Did I read that right?
"The point to get across is that if we have to demonstrate something about all the elements of a large set, it is hopelessly inefficient to deal with all the elements of the set individually: the efficient argument does not refer to individual elements at all and is carried out in terms of the set's definition."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I certainly don't recommend Google over Firefox. But I do not recommend using Firefox's Sync functionality, which is indeed insecure by design. I have no idea why so many downvotes. Can anyone disagree that a system in which Mozilla is able to decrypt user data is insecure? One note: the attack is not necessarily detectable, unless you are in the practice of verifying the JavaScript you receive for each page. If…
We can run our own Firefox Account servers. A privacy-focused hosting co-op could run that as part of their services, or someone could run their own at home (but that's not useful to the general public). People get annoyed of being told x-y-z is not secure, while not being offered any practical solution, especially if the risk/probability of attack is low. (I'm assuming Firefox has a good reason for working the way i…
Which can themselves be compromised. The old Firefox Sync protocol was immune to remote compromise, completely and totally.
> People get annoyed of being told x-y-z is not secure, while not being offered any practical solution
I agree: the problem is that there was a practical solution: just keep the old Sync protocol.
> I'm assuming Firefox has a good reason for working the way it does
The short version is that people wanted to be able to only have one device and still get at their data, and Mozilla didn't want to confuse them by separating their account passwords and their sync passwords. Never mind that combining them has results in a wholesale loss of security.