Is Firefox's sandboxing on par with Chrome yet? And on Linux in particular?
Firefox 70
181–190 of 468 posts
Re: Firefox 70
#182Firefox + Mozilla are awesome. I still have a Mozilla 1.0 t-shirt from the first release party! I've recently seen a ton of FF fans state that the reason they love Firefox is that it doesn't have ads or track you and preserves your privacy. However, Firefox wouldn't exist without Google and (to a lesser extent, Google Chrome). They make 94% of their revenue via bundling and distribution deals with companies like Goog…
> Without Google's ad business Firefox wouldn't exist Really? My recollection of events 15 years ago is a little hazy, but wasnt FF a browser-only release of Mozilla, itself Netscape which has been around as long as time itself (~25 years?) What are we talking about here? There was very definitely a push around 2003 to get FF adopted en masse, and I guess Google probably were a big factor in this ... Bit of a stretch…
Yeah, I have to ask what percentage of Firefox developers are paid for by Google's money?
I was somehow under the impression that Firefox was developed mostly by volunteers, and so Firefox development would be largely unaffected if Google was out of the picture.
Re: Firefox 70
#183> Pause on DOM Mutation in Debugger Heckin finally! The dev tool improvements all seem good. Still no support for inline code edits, which means JS debugging will still be something of a pain, but strengthening Firefox's position as one of the better tools for debugging and prototyping CSS.
Saw that too. What a wicked feature. Will make reverse engineering and debugging other peoples code much much easier!
Re: Firefox 70
#184Firefox + Mozilla are awesome. I still have a Mozilla 1.0 t-shirt from the first release party! I've recently seen a ton of FF fans state that the reason they love Firefox is that it doesn't have ads or track you and preserves your privacy. However, Firefox wouldn't exist without Google and (to a lesser extent, Google Chrome). They make 94% of their revenue via bundling and distribution deals with companies like Goog…
> Without Google's ad business Firefox wouldn't exist Really? My recollection of events 15 years ago is a little hazy, but wasnt FF a browser-only release of Mozilla, itself Netscape which has been around as long as time itself (~25 years?) What are we talking about here? There was very definitely a push around 2003 to get FF adopted en masse, and I guess Google probably were a big factor in this ... Bit of a stretch…
My memory is also that FF was originally a decoupled version of Netscape and I think they also simplified the code base a lot back then to remove bloat. I remember a motivation being that Netscape was just too slow and big and couldn't compete with Internet Explorer very well.
I am not sure it's fair to say that Mozilla "supports ads" by making Google the default search engine in exchange for a bunch of funding. It's a default, you can change it, they need money, I'm glad they took it.
I'm sure that even if it didn't enable Firefox's existence I am sure it made the developer's lives a lot better and increased the number of research projects they could afford to do.
Edit: But the point that Google makes money from ads and so Mozilla would have less funding without Google making money from ads is I guess true. I think Google just wanted to push an alternative to IE. I don't mind ads existing (well, I get that they're a necessary evil) but tracking is something I very much mind.
Re: Firefox 70
#185Firefox + Mozilla are awesome. I still have a Mozilla 1.0 t-shirt from the first release party! I've recently seen a ton of FF fans state that the reason they love Firefox is that it doesn't have ads or track you and preserves your privacy. However, Firefox wouldn't exist without Google and (to a lesser extent, Google Chrome). They make 94% of their revenue via bundling and distribution deals with companies like Goog…
> Without Google's ad business Firefox wouldn't exist Really? My recollection of events 15 years ago is a little hazy, but wasnt FF a browser-only release of Mozilla, itself Netscape which has been around as long as time itself (~25 years?) What are we talking about here? There was very definitely a push around 2003 to get FF adopted en masse, and I guess Google probably were a big factor in this ... Bit of a stretch…
Google's payments are not charity. FF has users and could have routed traffic generated by them to the highest bidder. It just happened that the highest bidder is Google. And they do it for profit: ad revenue generated by those users likely significantly surpasses traffic acquisition cost.
Re: Firefox 70
#186Not mentioned in this article (although it's in the Release Notes [1]): the amazing work done regarding the macOS compositor. This should give pretty noticeable speed and battery improvements on Retina Macbooks. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/70.0/releasenotes/#new
Battery life is my primary concern, and unless they release battery life benchmarks I’d be hard pressed to switch off of Safari.
Recently switched from Safari to Firefox because of the awful extensions environment in Safari but definitely missing the battery life. Really wish one browser could just get everything right
Re: Firefox 70
#187Firefox + Mozilla are awesome. I still have a Mozilla 1.0 t-shirt from the first release party! I've recently seen a ton of FF fans state that the reason they love Firefox is that it doesn't have ads or track you and preserves your privacy. However, Firefox wouldn't exist without Google and (to a lesser extent, Google Chrome). They make 94% of their revenue via bundling and distribution deals with companies like Goog…
> I'd rather we live in a world where customers paid directly for the product and I was the customer (not the product). Out of curiosity, what services and products are you paying for? I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of HN users are still using a @gmail.com email address. And I'm actually in that super small minority that pays for services such as FastMail, Dropbox, Newsblur, 1Password, or YouTube (premium).…
> Out of curiosity, what services and products are you paying for?
To be fair you're asking the wrong person. I pay for a ton of products. I pay for IntelliJ which I think is $150 per year. HubSpot which will probably get $1k from me... I pay for Gmail... I think it's $4 per user per month? TeamCity, CircleCI ... NYTimes (yeah, I actually pay).
... but I do think you're right here.
I'm actually legitimately curious to understand this issue.
I want to focus my product, Polar, on being a premium document management platform for people VERY serious about research:
... I want to understand more about this mindset though. I think you can make a go at things if you have a VERY premium product focused on a tight niche (at least initially).
> both by license and by how it is developed.
I'd like to argue that this is false. The argument behind Open Source is that it's developed by the community and that by being open there is some sort of community development behind it.
However, that's not what we see from Open Source outside of enterpise. 99% of Mozilla's development comes from paid Mozilla engineers.
> I'd rather use Mozilla's Firefox, instead of products with obscure VC-backed business models
I mean this is sort of a logical fallacy. Just because something is based on a company doesn't mean they are trying to do something inherently wrong.
Re: Firefox 70
#188Wow, blown away by how much better the new password manager is! If they add support for custom fields on each login, this could almost completely replace my need for a 3rd party solution.
So when some Firefox tab gets owned by some Javascript exploit, does that mean its integrated password manager could be compromised too?
Re: Firefox 70
#189Firefox + Mozilla are awesome. I still have a Mozilla 1.0 t-shirt from the first release party! I've recently seen a ton of FF fans state that the reason they love Firefox is that it doesn't have ads or track you and preserves your privacy. However, Firefox wouldn't exist without Google and (to a lesser extent, Google Chrome). They make 94% of their revenue via bundling and distribution deals with companies like Goog…
What is actually disingenuous is equating the search deals to anything Google, like making adblocking harder and downright impossible on mobile
Could you clarify? I don't follow your point.
Re: Firefox 70
#190I am not a Firefox user but know that matching Webkit performance on macOS is going to be very hard. So just fired a test on my Macbook Air - Safari 13 vs Firefox 70. Opened top 10 links from techmeme. Both windows in background. Firefox 70: Energy use 30-200; CPU 20-25%; Threads 82 Safari 13: Energy use 0.1-5; CPU 2-5%; Threads 11 If this is to celebrate I can only imagine what the things looked like before this rel…
I just can't imagine Firefox will ever be performant as Safari. One is written for a single platform developed at the same company that develops the hardware and OS (I'm not trying to belittle the Safari team--it's kind of amazing what they do). The other is developed separately, must equally support at least 2 other OSes and has an expectation for supporting older setups.
My problem is that Safari won't work for me as a daily driver so it's not an option. It seems too aggressive in memory management and in reloading.
So I'm very happy to see Firefox improve performance over Firefox-v1.