I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video). I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode. https://…
No to Chrome
11–20 of 319 posts
Re: No to Chrome
#12I've given up waiting for firefox to get their act together. Instead they pay people to play with VRML and WebVR. After wasting something like a decade trying to be a cell phone operating system (FirefoxOS? WTF?)
And they continue to be actively hostile to a "libfirefox.so" existing. So awesome projects like qutebrowser have only one choice, the Chromium Embedded Framework, which is what QtWebEngine is based on (if you think Vimium-FF is an alternative you haven't used qutebrowser).
We have already lost.
Re: No to Chrome
#13I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video). I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode. https://…
Try Safari and/or Brave
Re: No to Chrome
#14Google is masking website content into their content. We need to make a move before its too late
Re: No to Chrome
#15I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video). I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode. https://…
Try Safari and/or Brave
Re: No to Chrome
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try Safari and/or Brave
I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.
Re: No to Chrome
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try Safari and/or Brave
I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.
Re: No to Chrome
#18Re: No to Chrome
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.
But Safari still supports extensions, surely? I’m using it with extensions, there are not stories I can see about them removing support, and their Développement pages are still up.
Advertisers are already figuring out how to get around that. CNAME cloacking, proxying with same domain, etc.
Re: No to Chrome
#20@ project owner: I'd consider changing (or replacing) the quote to use age and gender neutral language; e.g. "[...], definitively far beyond to what I’d trust the average user to comprehend".
[0] https://notochrome.org/google-products/android-mobile-os/
Edit: His mother might not be able to root her phone, but my friend D.'s might be forking LineageOS for fun - so please don't generalize.