"We've disabled old TLS connections and insecure cipher-schemes, so websites which used to work will now display an error" doesn't really sound like an improvement for the user. I'd rather see a warning detailing the situation and asking me if I want to proceed (maybe I don't care about encryption when visiting the particular site).
Firefox 78
121–130 of 269 posts
Re: Firefox 78
#122Firefox shows the full URL, fully supports multiple Google accounts, and is the only browser that has temporary container tabs. I'm surprised Chrome users tolerate soft paywalls or having to constantly clear their cache. It's a basic feature every browser should have in 2020.
Re: Firefox 78
#123Great. Unlike many, I walk my talk and have always used Firefox since more than a decade with no exceptions. The very commonly given reason that DevTools are better in Chrome still doesn't stop one from using Firefox for all other general browsing. Unless we support alternatives we really shouldn't complain when they gradually die off in a space that is increasingly coming under the control of giant corporations with…
[deleted]
Re: Firefox 78
#124Great. Unlike many, I walk my talk and have always used Firefox since more than a decade with no exceptions. The very commonly given reason that DevTools are better in Chrome still doesn't stop one from using Firefox for all other general browsing. Unless we support alternatives we really shouldn't complain when they gradually die off in a space that is increasingly coming under the control of giant corporations with…
> The very commonly given reason that DevTools are better in Chrome
I don't find that to be true. At least not anymore. I use both Chrome and Fx bout 50/50 for developing, and they each have something the other misses.
For instance, "preserve log" in Chrome's network tab throws away all the actual response data when moving to a new page. In Firefox it's there. So when debugging through our micro-frontend flow I prefer Fx.
Re: Firefox 78
#125Great. Unlike many, I walk my talk and have always used Firefox since more than a decade with no exceptions. The very commonly given reason that DevTools are better in Chrome still doesn't stop one from using Firefox for all other general browsing. Unless we support alternatives we really shouldn't complain when they gradually die off in a space that is increasingly coming under the control of giant corporations with…
Agreed, I kept trying Chrome after it first came out and honestly it just never became my daily browser. I use it when developing but not because I think the dev tools are better, Firefox's dev tools arent that bad, I dont know what magical features people are missing, but they're all there for me.
Re: Firefox 78
#126Does it still have UglyBar from v77? Seems like that.
Is there any specific thing that makes it ugly? I'm curious because I don't see the ugliness. Since I use Firefox 99% of the time, I just opened Chrome and Edge to check out their address bars. All three are extremely similar. In Chrome and Edge the borders are more rounded, while Firefox opts for a more square look. All three feature a "popup" effect that makes the bar slightly bigger when interacting with it: in Fi…
"in Firefox this effect activates when clicking the bar, while the other two enlarge when inputting data."
This difference is why Firefox receives mores complaints.
When opening a new tab in Firefox, the address bar is automatically focused. This actually makes the address bar larger than the bounds of the encapsulating toolbar. This combined with the drop shadows helps to partially obscure adjacent toolbar(s), like the bookmarks toolbar.
Re: Firefox 78
#127Pocket is great and totally deserves more promotion. I know this will trigger a lot of people saying it's spyware, I used to think that too, but then I embraced it and it's great for bookmarking, syncthing tabs, reading news as podcasts on mobile etc. It's great.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I find that Pocket is unable to detect duplicate copies of the same article and prevent them from being added to my list unless they were added from Firefox's landing page, i.e. the "Sponsored by Firefox" and "Recommended by Pocket" sections.
Is there something I can do to make Pocket prevent duplicates from being added on the basis of the article's URL alone?
Re: Firefox 78
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Love that FF exists but one of the things that always strikes me is that if FF is successful in their mission they will cut off their major revenue channel. Google is still the majority of their revenue is it not? The reason they're making that money is off the backs of other consumers who are NOT benefiting from the privacy features that you guys want to see everywhere. Willing to be totally wrong here and would lov…
Yes, I wish there was a clear way to fund Firefox development. You can (and I do) donate to the Mozilla Foundation, although the funding relationship between the Mozilla Foundation and Firefox isn't clear. I believe that if Google's funding were to become insufficient, then the Foundation would step in to fund it if they have the funds, which is why I donate to them. But I don't know if this is actually the case.
> the funding relationship between the Mozilla Foundation and Firefox isn't clear
It's not really an unknown. Donations to Mozilla Foundation do not and cannot fund Firefox development.
> if Google's funding were to become insufficient, then the Foundation would step in to fund it if they have the funds
There are two assumptions here that are off. One is that the Foundation could come up with the kind of money that the Corporation spends on Firefox. The other is that the Corporation is somehow in a tight situation financially. Reality is opposite to both.
First, the Corporation is not strapped for cash. It brings in a lot of money. Like, in-the-neighborhood-of-half-a-billion-dollars-a-year a lot. It spent something like 29MM acquiring Pocket (which is still as closed source now as it was 3 years ago), and it manages to spend 50MM on its marketing campaigns that most people aren't even aware exist. Under the current arrangement the Corporation funds the Foundation, paying a percentage of its revenues to allow the Corporation to trade on Mozilla's name. (If that sounds like a weird way to put it, consider revisiting your other assumptions about Mozilla and Firefox.)
Re: Firefox 78
#129Does it still have UglyBar from v77? Seems like that.
This new bar is why I stopped upgrading FF. with 76 you could change it with about:firefox options, then in 77 you had to use userChrome.css I got tired of trying to find a workaround for a piece of utility software. I shouldnt have to relearn functionality every minor release of a browser. I love FF, but Im sticking with 76 for the foreseeable future.
Sorry you don't like the new design. Personally, I found it really jarring at first, but by now I don't notice it unless I consciously look for it.
Hope you enjoy your unpatched security issues.
Re: Firefox 78
#130I see their still pushing Pocket recommendations, I still find that choice baffling.
Indeed. And there's still no way to actually remove Pocket. I'll never understand why this isn't shipped as a plugin.