I really wanted to keep using Firefox, but it is just too slow on my Mac. It makes itself and all other things I do very slow. Until this is resolved there is no way I can use it. Instead I use Brave now.
Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
91–100 of 343 posts
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#92Taking users away from Google is still a big ask. Google has been thoroughly anti-competitive in this space - they deliberately downgrade the experience in non-Chrome browsers across many properties. For example, typing "GOOG stock" in Chrome/Android brings up a whole lot of details not found with Firefox/Android. There's no technical reason to do this, and they should be pulled up for abuse of monopoly power. Google search itself was better on Chrome till recently, though it's caught up now on Firefox/Android.
Add: I've been a Firefox/Android user for a while now - and with ad-blocking the UX experience and battery life is much better than with Chrome. I encourage everyone to try it (with ad-blocking) for at least a week. Personally for me, Firefox on Android is a bigger deal than on the desktop.
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#93Just so we can avoid rehashing the discussion whenever a post encouraging the use of Firefox is posted. - Yes, Mozilla is still the better browser when it comes to privacy. - Yes, Mozilla has made missteps with Pocket and Mr. Robot. - Yes, it is slow/resource heavy on certain Macs with non-default resolutions. Yes, Mozilla is working on a fix. - Yes, it has become really fast for most users after Quantum improvements…
> - Yes, it is slow/resource heavy on certain Macs with non-default resolutions. Yes, Mozilla is working on a fix. On some of them. I use Mac with non-default resolution and I have no issues.
Which is why I said "on certain Macs". From my anecdotal experience, I've never had a problem with Firefox on macOS with any resolution.
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can, just not the Firefox rendering engine. As frustrating as that is, perhaps if more iOS users picked firefox as their "browser" then maybe Apple would take a hint and open up allowing other rendering engines. Although I'm not holding my breath. I'm an Apple user in as far as I have an iPad Pro and a Macbook Pro, I certainly don't hold Apple in as high regard as I used to do but those two products are superb eve…
> As frustrating as that is, perhaps if more iOS users picked firefox as their "browser" then maybe Apple would take a hint and open up allowing other rendering engines. Although I'm not holding my breath. The problem with this is that allowing other rendering engines would open up a whole can of worms that Apple would rather not have to deal with, and there's no easy way, even if Apple wanted it, to allow JIT execut…
What design choices mean third party Android browsers can do JIT but third party iPhone ones can't?
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Yes, Mozilla has made missteps with Pocket and Mr. Robot. These are forgivable in my opinion. At least this steps are somehow understandable. What I‘m really miffed about is their partnership with Cliqz. If Google is the devil then Cliqz is Beelzebub. I don‘t understand what they were thinking...
can you elaborate?
Cliqz is a company that primarily provides a Firefox based browser with privacy-oriented changes.
Their slogan is „The no-compromise browser. Cliqz gives you relevant search results and does not leak your private data.”
Sounds good on the surface, but what they really mean with „does not leak” is leak to Google. The Cliqz browser sends every keystroke in real-time to some supposedly Cliqz owned AWS instances. I verified that myself with Wireshark. They outright lie about this in their Transparency Cockpit: ”Telemetry data do not contain any information about queries, search results or visited URLs.”
Now Cliqz is owned by Hubert Burda Media one of Germany‘s largest media groups. Honi soit quit mal y pense.
I wrote a comment about this about a year ago[1] and also one about their relationship with Ghostery[2] more recently.
Hubert Burda Media is also one of the primary drivers behind EU link tax and upload filter legislation.
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firefox on iOS doesn't do that either, but at least Firefox has its own tracking protection. Firefox on iOS can't do this, unfortunately :(
I'm curious about this. I get that firefox for ios has to use a webview, but why can't it allow extensions that can manipulate what's in the webview? The main reason I'm currently sticking with Android is that I can install firefox and use ublock origin and https everywhere.
You can run your own JavaScript in WKWebView, which is what Firefox uses, so you can run "extensions" to the extent of what the App Store will allow you to do. What you cannot do in this case is load content blockers, which a newer API that uses a list of selectors to block elements without JavaScript at all. Currently this API is limited to Safari itself and SFSafariViewController, which is untenable for Firefox because it is essentially "Safari in a box" in that the component provides its own UI and you essentially cannot interact with it at all.
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. So they sold out and the alternative is a browser from an advert company. How do you think Mozilla should fund the development of Firefox?
An alternative is an open source version of a browser from an advert company, with anti-features hopefully being kept in check by diligent maintainers. As much as I dislike that, from the advert company I know they're on the side of the advertisers. They're not presenting a "we're on the side of you, the users" face, whilst behaving more or less the same. A better alternative would be a fork of Firefox, kept up to da…
> An alternative is an open source version of a browser from an advert company, with anti-features hopefully being kept in check by diligent maintainers.
To which nobody will listen and who'd have zero power in the standards committees, as unfortunate as it may be.
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#98How will avid Apple users on this website choose Firefox as a browser on their iPhones and iPad computers? EDIT: To clarify, mean the rendering engine (so we keep the ecosystem diversity), not the reskinned Safari. Reskinning Safari with Firefox branding does nothing for WebKit web monoculture.
I don't believe one really can. That's a good argument against Apple's walled garden IMHO.
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firefox on iOS doesn't do that either, but at least Firefox has its own tracking protection. Firefox on iOS can't do this, unfortunately :(
I'm curious about this. I get that firefox for ios has to use a webview, but why can't it allow extensions that can manipulate what's in the webview? The main reason I'm currently sticking with Android is that I can install firefox and use ublock origin and https everywhere.
Not sure what the situation is nowadays, but extensions were not supported due to Apple’s App Store policies.
I would be happy just with Safari’s content blockers, but apparently they use a type of web view that doesn’t support that either.
Re: Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014)
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chrome multiprocess isolation model is really good. Firefox devs have known this for ages (heck, there were demos of a version of Firefox 3.x with a similar model), but could not actually land this model for two reasons: - it would break all old-style extensions and users were unhappy about that; - it takes looooots of memory and users were unhappy about that, too. Now that Firefox has dropped all old-style exten…
A browser written in Rust (which is probably Firefox's long term goal) should blow Chrome out of the water in terms of security, despite the massive efforts invested in that regard by Google to prop up Chrome's C++ code base.
Would it really though? Sure, there are definitely things about Rust that make coding more secure, but surely that it only one part of security?