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

Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 753 posts

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#241

Post by Sylos »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #25
didgeoridoo wrote: post #3

Ironically, the thing that drove me to Firefox was the excellent Account Containers system that I found necessary to manage being logged into multiple Google Apps accounts simultaneously (I have five ). Each tab owns one account — that way, Google Drive files from my work don't randomly refuse to open because I'm also logged into my personal account. (Chrome has no solution for containing accounts across tabs, last I…

What does that mean in terms of resources? Is 2 FF tabs that much less taxing than 2 Chrome instances? fwiw, I use multiple Chromes, each with its own project / client, own password manager, etc. I don't think I could maintain the silos I do with FF. I wish I could sack Google (Chrome) but I can't, afaik.

Firefox supports both, completely separated browser profiles and these more lightweight Container Tabs.

You can type "about:profiles" into the URL-bar to manage your profiles (which you can also bookmark for easier access).

You can also run "firefox -P" in a terminal to access a similar GUI. With "firefox -P profile_name", you can start a specific profile. To run multiple profiles in parallel from the CLI, you have to start further profiles with "firefox -P profile_name --new-instance" (Linux) or "firefox.exe -P profile_name --no-remote" (Windows). This is because when you click on a link in an application, it needs to know in which browser instance to open that link.

As for resource usage, the profiles separate everything. Browsing history, bookmarks, logins, add-ons etc. It's essentially like a second Firefox installation. This also means that it actually runs two instances, so twice the RAM usage and somewhat more CPU usage to move that data around.

The Container Tabs on the other hand only separate what needs to be separated in order to look towards webpages like two different browsers. So, there's a different cookie jar, different localStorage, different HTML5 Web Storage etc., but other than that it's the same as just opening two tabs. So, probably not even 1% more RAM usage than using Firefox without any separation.

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#242

Post by dblohm7 »

nsm wrote: post #233

I'm typing this comment from Firefox running inside a container on a Pixelbook (ChromeOS) :) Firefox has been my daily driver for over 5 years, with all my history and bookmarks synced across all devices I had to have it on ChromeOS too. It does a great job. The Tree Style Tabs extension really makes life easy and with u2f support, there are very few things I need to use Chrome for now (Looks at hangouts!).

My understanding is that Hangouts has finally been fixed.

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#243

Post by dblohm7 »

furgooswft13 wrote: post #192
jploh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember XUL. Not a fan but it's sad it didn't take off. We need an Electron alternative.

The idea was essentially the same, except instead of HTML + JS it was XUL + JS. And XUL provided a far richer set of built in controls, and was far more powerful and flexible than HTML, especially at the time it was conceived and still arguably today. Critically it tried to render all the standard GUI elements we were accustomed to in the 90s and early 00s using the native APIs of whatever OS it was running on. Webde…

We actually had a prototype of an Electron-style embedding solution for Gecko called Positron, but I believe work on it was stopped.

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#244

Post by Karunamon »

addicted wrote: post #140
whalesalad wrote: post #4

I switched cold turkey to Firefox a few months ago. It was fine for a bit but eventually became unbearably slow. I made the switch on both my work MacBook Pro (retina) and my personal MacBook Air. Both had similar issues. That and the fact that it ships with things like Pocket made me jump back to Chrome.

How is Pocket any different from Safari’s Read It Later, or all of Google’s equivalents? And unlike the other browsers, Pocket while included by default, is still an extension instead of baked into the browser.

It really isn't, but neither Chrome nor Safari are in the habit of making obnoxious UI changes, force-pushing addons I don't want, putting ads on the new tab page (which you would think would be more Chrome's bailiwick, but they don't), and so forth.

I don't want to be using Firefox when whatever the next boneheaded move they make lands. Mozilla burned every bit of goodwill I ever for them had when they destroyed an odd decade or so of muscle memory and customization of a tool I use every day. Yeah, so they're supposedly pro privacy. Neat. Whatever. They also have the organizational attention span of a toddler on Red Bull.

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#245

Post by dblohm7 »

kranner wrote: post #20

Firefox also seems to have better support for WebVR than Chrome, at least on Windows. As a very rough measure, half of the A-frame official demos don't render for me on Chrome, but all of them render on Firefox. They're also choppy on Chrome compared to Firefox.

Considering that both WebVR and A-Frame originated at Mozilla, this is unsurprising.

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#246

Post by gnicholas »

dagenix wrote: post #239
5thbootloader wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe being against LGBT marriages necessarily implies that you are against all forms of LGBT relationships / lifestyles. Marriage has become regulated by the state due to its implications on all citizens. Just because someone doesn't agree with how the state legislates sexual relationships doesn't mean they should be antogonized. Their views can be beneficial to the argument regardless of which side they t…

Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech. In 2008, he spoke, via a $1,000 public donation, of his opinion to support Prop 8. It wasn't just some random thought - he had a very specific outcome in mind that he wanted to see enacted that would impact _other_ people's lives. He got the consequence he wanted - Prop 8 passed and same-sex marriage was outlawed.…

> Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech

This is actually not true. For example, it would have been illegal for Mozilla to fire Eich for his donation. This is because political activity is considered protected in California (like gender, race, etc.), so firing someone for making a political statement or for donating to a political cause is illegal.

We will probably learn more about this defense as the Google/Damore case proceeds.

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#247

Post by icelancer »

I switched and while I use it daily, even on plain installs it has huge, huge memory footprints. I thought switching over was going to be a huge memory saver over Chrome, but it hasn't proven to be the case for me unfortunately.

And of course, it "doesn't" support USB keys like Yubikey, as in, it totally does if you change a config flag, but websites like Vanguard and even Google just check user-agent and if it returns Firefox, it prompts you to use other methods because the key "isn't supported."

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#248

Post by manfredo »

dagenix wrote: post #239
5thbootloader wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe being against LGBT marriages necessarily implies that you are against all forms of LGBT relationships / lifestyles. Marriage has become regulated by the state due to its implications on all citizens. Just because someone doesn't agree with how the state legislates sexual relationships doesn't mean they should be antogonized. Their views can be beneficial to the argument regardless of which side they t…

Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech. In 2008, he spoke, via a $1,000 public donation, of his opinion to support Prop 8. It wasn't just some random thought - he had a very specific outcome in mind that he wanted to see enacted that would impact _other_ people's lives. He got the consequence he wanted - Prop 8 passed and same-sex marriage was outlawed.…

> Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech.

Incorrect. At least, it's incorrect as far as consequences levied by their employers. In the United States, government employees are protected by the First Amendment. E.G. a government department that fired employees for pro or anti gay marriage donations would mean that the government is privileging one political opinion over the other:

> the rationale now is that while government may deny employment, or any benefit for that matter, for any number of reasons, it may not deny employment or other benefits on a basis that infringes that person’s constitutionally protected interests. “For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to ‘produce a result which [it] could not command directly.’ . . . Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible."

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1cfrag5_user.htm...

Edit (since HN isn't letting me respond):

> In his case, his employees exercised their right to speak, said they thought he wasn't fit to be CEO, demanded his resignation, and he resigned.

This is not entirely correct, and is omitting a substantial part of the story. The company board (who are effectively Eich's bosses) told him to step down as CEO. The CEO doesn't have have a manager and so can't really be fired like a normal employee, but the board telling him to resign is functionally the same thing.

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#249

Post by CamperBob2 »

manfredo wrote: post #159
dagenix wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mere fact that a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it right or just. Justice is protecting the weak and the powerless from the powerful, not voting on who has human rights and who doesn't from week to week. Also, Prop 8 was in 2008. He was appointed to the CEO position in 2014 - 6 years later. He had every opportunity to apologize. Everyone makes mistakes, even big ones. But, he refused to apologize.…

And who gets to say what protections people should and should not receive? If a company genuinely believes that pro-LGBT views are harmful, then in your framework they're equally justified to fire employees that donated in opposition to Proposition 8. I think a lot of people forget that there's a world beyond liberal urban areas. Allowing it to become socially acceptable for companies to fire employees for their poli…

And who gets to say what protections people should and should not receive?

In the US, the notion of equal protection under law is stated unequivocally in our founding documents. It is not the government's business to sanction some personal relationships but not others.

Not debatable at all, IMO, when looked at objectively,

Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try

#250

Post by siddboots »

alf-pogz wrote: post #137
rpearl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? His donation (of public record) specifically against same sex marriage--indicated that he was not a good culture fit. People (inside and outside the organization) chose to point that out when he was promoted. This really doesn't have anything to do with user privacy in any way whatsoever--nothing about user privacy was surfaced or breached in any way. Nor is there any indication, in mozilla's extremely open sou…

The act was definitely "doxing" any way you slice it. Folks at Mozilla actively chose to find a touchy topic, and expose it to cause the "bad culture fit" argument. I'm not here to start conspiracies, I'm simply stating that the entire event left me feeling that there are some big players at Mozilla that will use ethically gray areas to achieve their goals, and the people who indulged in that gray area won and are st…

It's not doxing by any definition I'm familiar with. Also, this sentence...

> Folks at Mozilla actively chose to find a touchy topic, and expose it to cause the "bad culture fit" argument.

You are insinuating that folks at Mozilla exploited his position on same sex marriage towards a hidden agenda of some kind.

Another interpretation is that folks at Mozilla simply took issue with his position on same sex marriage.

Post reply on HN