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

No to Chrome

notochrome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 319 posts

Re: No to Chrome

#81

Post by mrpopo »

jmstfv wrote: post #9

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://…

The comments from noel@chromium.org in this bug report are scary.

"We're not doing as the spec tells us to, BUT that probably gives us performance gains, most users don't care about it anyway, I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead (!?)..."

Why so much resistance?

Re: No to Chrome

#82

Post by sojournerc »

azangru wrote: post #71

Chrome/ium is a wonderful web development environment. Can't see myself moving away from it any time soon.

I used to think the same, but now do all web dev in Firefox. For my purposes it has parity with chrome, and works just as well.

Also means if it works in Firefox it will most likely work in chrome. The opposite was not always true.

Re: No to Chrome

#83

Post by macintux »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #35
ropiwqefjnpoa wrote: post #25

Even if you have no issue with Google, this is still a good idea to encourage competition. Honestly, Chrome is not as good as it used to be anyway. For me, Google Maps and Waze are the hardest things to kick. And YouTube...

Apple Maps is now quite usable if you're on iOS...although it's no Waze.

I've been using Apple Maps for years now, but the new maps are practically unusable for one of my favorite use cases: scanning for roads in remote, wooded areas.

I was trying to show someone one of my favorite state highways through the Hoosier National Forest, but the road (remember, a state highway!) literally vanishes into the greenery until you zoom quite far in. Maddening.

Re: No to Chrome

#84

Post by tomstockmail »

thefreeman wrote: post #67
delosII wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus,[0]Brave is going to block [1]CNAME Cloaking first-party trackers, AFAIK no other browser, not[2]add-on, has or plan to have such blocking capabilities. [0] https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21604825 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698

the [2] link states that ublock origin in firefox already supports this. did you even read it or just copy paste from someone elses brave fanboy comment.

Note how all of these Brave promotion comments are from new accounts...

Re: No to Chrome

#85

Post by Braggadocious »

azdv wrote: post #76

Interesting, I just moved back to Firefox after many years of using Chrome. I have to admit, it has gotten a lot faster recently, Firefox sync is working very well, and the Firefox Android app is a pleasure to use (being able to install uBlock origin is a huge plus). Anything else I missed on Chrome was easily solved by an addon, or a small tweak on userChrome.css (customizing the browser interface by overriding its…

it's literally the same engine as chrome. the only reason i use chrome is for the dev tools.

Re: No to Chrome

#86

Post by theandrewbailey »

jmstfv wrote: post #9

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://…

I started using Firefox in 2004, and never stopped using it as a main driver since.

Re: No to Chrome

#87

Post by alex_duf »

ossworkerrights wrote: post #24

I am quite satisfied with using chrome. Once there will be suitable alternative i will gladly move away from it tho, just a breath of fresh air.

Out of curiosity what makes Firefox or any other web browser fail to be a suitable alternative to you?

Re: No to Chrome

#88

Post by philliphaydon »

Braggadocious wrote: post #85
azdv wrote: post #76

Interesting, I just moved back to Firefox after many years of using Chrome. I have to admit, it has gotten a lot faster recently, Firefox sync is working very well, and the Firefox Android app is a pleasure to use (being able to install uBlock origin is a huge plus). Anything else I missed on Chrome was easily solved by an addon, or a small tweak on userChrome.css (customizing the browser interface by overriding its…

it's literally the same engine as chrome. the only reason i use chrome is for the dev tools.

FF just got web socket inspectors so I really don't know what chrome dev tools has now. Everything about ff dev tools is better. Especially looking at css layouts.

Re: No to Chrome

#89

Post by floriol »

Antoninus wrote: post #21

I’m quite satisfied with my move away from google products. Moved from gmail to protonmail. Chrome to firefox and search to ddg. Ddg isn’t perfect though and I find myself using !g tag more often than I’d like.

I recently switched to qwant, seems to be a decent search engine, owned by a European company (as far as I know ddg is american, so pretty weak legal protection of user data). Though I also occasionally have to search on google.

Re: No to Chrome

#90

Post by exergy »

arunmib wrote: post #68
reportgunner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try blocking all images on Youtube so you won't see thumbnails. It helps a ton.

Don't follow the point

To avoid deep binges into youtube. First of all, youtube thumbnails are cancer anyway, so blocking them is one step towards a Lower Information Diet. And the first step to being able to quit any addictions to youtube.
Post reply on HN