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

191–200 of 319 posts

Re: No to Chrome

#191

Post by PX79 »

Yajirobe wrote: post #101
exergy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> youtube thumbnails are cancer anyway That's due to content creators, not YouTube.

When YouTube (actively or not) incentivizes that style of thumbnails you cant really blame the creators. I've heard something like 20% more viewers based solely on having a more "creative" thumbnail.

Re: No to Chrome

#192

Post by kgwxd »

matty22 wrote: post #185

Can anyone recommend a web-based, privacy respecting alternative to Google Docs/Sheets? It's the one part of Google products I haven't found a good replacement for.

I wish LibreOffice had a calendar with an API, accessible from Calc. The only thing keeping my Google account open is a sheets/calender script that does some financial forecasting based on my calendar entries.

Re: No to Chrome

#193

Post by playpause »

brianzelip wrote: post #159
brianzelip wrote: post #153

Does anyone know the Firefox dev tools equivalent of Chrome dev tools "JavaScript contexts" drop down menu? I'm not sure how to describe it, but here are two screenshots from a tutorial where I saw it: 1. With mouse hovering over the drop down menu showing the displayed tool tip https://imgur.com/a/16lCRWg 2. With clicked on drop down menu showing the "javascript contexts" https://imgur.com/a/SPZuvWr

Oh, by "js contexts" do they mean "all the javascripts related to the page?" If so, then I guess this file tree-like explorer of js is the Firefox equivalent? https://imgur.com/a/YvA9Hdw

No, each context can contain multiple scripts. Each browser tab has a single top-level context called 'top', plus it will have extra contexts for any frames or iframes within the page, as well as for any browser extensions running on the page.

Only script elements in the HTML of the top-level page (i.e. in the HTML served directly from the URL you see in the location bar) get to be in the 'top' context.

Re: No to Chrome

#194

Post by oarsinsync »

oefrha wrote: post #170
observr9 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> ... highlighting search results in the scroll bar... This. I find any browser that doesn't do that to be unusable. The alternative, in long documents or source code, is to blindly hit NEXT and visit all locations where a search term is found rather than scrolling quickly to see the different context regions. I tried a plug-in or two but they were not nearly as functional as the native Chrome experience.

Glad I’m not insane, or not the only one insane. Whenever I read one of these highly-voted “I switched to Firefox and nothing’s degraded” post I wonder if I’m the only one searching on web pages, or if I’m the only one whose productivity is massively boosted by knowing where search results are located and how they are clustered at a glance. But then, modern code editors do tend to have this feature, so apparently it…

> modern code editors do tend to have this feature, so apparently it is important to a non-negligible audience

Sorry, but as far as the modern browsers are concerned, we coders are a negligible market to cater for. The number of non-coder browser-users is orders magnitude higher than the number of coders.

Re: No to Chrome

#196

Post by purple_ducks »

digitarald wrote: post #113
donaltroddyn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of browsers, I have moved back to Firefox from Google for my personal/professional browsing, but I have a product that is heavily reliant on Puppeteer and CDP. There are moves towards interoperability in Firefox, but that's my current blocker.

Firefox DevTools member here. We are looking into Puppeteer/CDP – what is the product you depend on? If you can't post it here, feel free to email me [nickname] at mozilla org

How many devs are on the firefox devtools team?

Re: No to Chrome

#197

Post by husainalshehhi »

One of the things I like about google chrome is the omnibar: i can search within a website directly from the bar. For example, I can type amazon.com and then I can directly search. This also works for many of my company's internal websites. Can firefox do that?

Re: No to Chrome

#198

Post by eythian »

husainalshehhi wrote: post #197

One of the things I like about google chrome is the omnibar: i can search within a website directly from the bar. For example, I can type amazon.com and then I can directly search. This also works for many of my company's internal websites. Can firefox do that?

Not sure what's built in, but you can definitely make it do that by right-clicking on a search box and making a shortcut. I have 'wp' for wikipedia, 'yt' for youtube, etc.

Re: No to Chrome

#199

Post by mkbkn »

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.

Same for me but in case of search I prefer to use Ecosia.org over DDG. It plants trees from its revenues and privacy like ddg.

Re: No to Chrome

#200

Post by robbrown451 »

scholia wrote: post #165
quotha wrote: post #122

Does anyone use the Brave browser? I started a few days ago and it's a pretty interesting idea.

Search the page and you'll find several mentions of Brave. What I want to know is why someone would pick Brave instead of the Epic Privacy Browser... ... though personally, I think it's far better to support Firefox as it's now the only viable alternative browser that isn't based on Chrome. Chrome is now so dominant that people can just ignore open web standards and develop for Chrome instead. This is a Bad Thing.

I checked out Epics page, it says it is always in "private browsing mode."

So you never stay logged into anything? Private browsing has a purpose, but I can't imagine being stuck always private browsing. That sounds painful.

Post reply on HN