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

Firefox 78

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 269 posts

Re: Firefox 78

#241

Post by MayeulC »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #200
gganley wrote: post #160

So I'm on macOS using Safari for web browsing, chrome for work (web app + backend). I'm on the younger side so chrome has been omnipresent. I do not mean to understate the importance of privacy in the modern web, so don't misunderstand my question. Why would someone, as a developer and a user, want to use Firefox over Safari (mostly) and Chrome (for work).

> I do not mean to understate the importance of privacy in the modern web > Why would someone, as a developer and a user, want to use Firefox over Safari (mostly) and Chrome (for work). You wrote the answer before the question. Safari might have users' best interest at heart, but anything that stops an advertising company's browser from dominating the market is a good thing.

You made me think of Drew's last blog entry: https://drewdevault.com/2020/06/26/Vendor-purpose-OS.html

Maybe we need to coin "vendor-purpose browser" as well? All of the big three are, to some extent. And now, one has to think of the motives behind each vendor.

Hint: I'll stay on Firefox. And I even use other browsers sometimes, that just support some HTML (elinks, dillo...) on underpowered systems. Maybe we just need more underpowered systems?

Re: Firefox 78

#242

Post by jfkebwjsbx »

jetofff wrote: post #234

Does anybody here actually dislike Firefox (as a daily driver or in webdev)?

I don't like the constant UI changes, the ugly configuration menus, the new bar and the bundling of stuff nobody asked for like Pocket.

Re: Firefox 78

#244

Post by aseipp »

furbyhater wrote: post #121

"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).

You're actually asking for a thing that has already been available for quite a while until now (click through errors). So if you're just now thinking "maybe they should do that", they already have, and it's a strong indication that you never ran into any sites still using TLS 1.1 or 1.0 — and that removing them is just fine.

> I'd rather see

TLS 1.0 and 1.1 have unfixable security issues and TLS 1.2 was ratified as an internet standard 12 years ago. Mozilla reported over 1.5 years ago that the total number of TLS 1.1 and 1.0 connections seen from users was less than 1.5% of total TLS connections. There have been years of notice leading up to this. What internet forums filled with nerds would "rather see" isn't really relevant. I'm sure there were plenty of people worried about SSL 3.0, too, and the world didn't come to an end.

Re: Firefox 78

#245

Post by jaipilot747 »

On Firefox for Android Beta, the default seems to be to opt-in, to share "Marketing data" with their mobile marketing vendor, Leanplum.

This caught me by surprise and can be changed in the Settings -> Data collection menu.

Re: Firefox 78

#246

Post by Wowfunhappy »

Hemospectrum wrote: post #210
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #191

My Firefox's About page says I'm running Firefox 77.0.1, and that my browser is up-to-date. Is it because I'm running OS X 10.9, and they're planning to migrate me to ESR but the ESR build isn't out yet or something? Because I'm on 10.9, and I know my system is vulnerable, I always try to update to the latest release very quickly.

According to IRC rumors, automatic updates are delayed for a bit after the release is announced. Not sure if this is due to CDN replication or some other issue. At any rate, you can get the update faster by downloading and installing it manually.

I expected some delay as it was rolled out, but it's now five hours later and I still haven't gotten it.

I think I will indeed need to do a manual download, although I'm kind of curious how long it will take at this point.

Re: Firefox 78

#247

Post by paulryanrogers »

gnud wrote: post #151
jfk13 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't mind the design - but the functionality of the bar annoys me to no end. If you try to use a relative domain name (typing webtest01 instead of webtest01.mydomain.com, when your DNS resolves those two to the same address), for some reason Firefox thinks I want to search the web. I don't understand why. Even worse, if you use a full domain name (web.test), and even if you specify a port (web.test:8080), Firefox…

It could be for safety as well since some scams may rely on unusual TLDs for exploits.

Regardless, browsers are becoming like Word. Most use only 10% but everyone wants/needs a different 10% slice of functionality.

Re: Firefox 78

#248

Post by Shared404 »

devit wrote: post #186
buu700 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was one of my bigger reasons for a long time, but last I checked FF's dev tools were finally comparable to Chrome's. At this point I'm just blocked on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042 . I've seriously tried switching to Firefox a few times, and I really want to switch, but it's just not acceptable to have my CPU regularly pinned at 200%.

You should also switch to Linux (or Windows with WSL if you insist on running a proprietary OS).

Heaven forbid anyone use the software they like.

Neither you or I like macOS. However, people who do like it are welcome to use it. Being a jerk does nothing to get $YOUR_FAV_OS to gain population.

Re: Firefox 78

#249

Post by DanCarvajal »

uallo wrote: post #239
DanCarvajal wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I want content recommendations from my browser, especially Firefox? It's an utterly bizarre feature to ad. It didn't make sense for Google to have done it but it especially didn't make sense for Mozilla to play the "me too" game. It's a waste of money and developer resources and frankly shows poor stewardship on the part of management.

Then disable it. Judging from comments in this post, there seem to be numerous people who like it. And given Mozilla owns Pocket and a small amount of revenue is coming from it, what is wrong with pushing it?

Because at the same time they've struggled to move past the Gecko engine and create a product that can reasonable keep up with Google Chrome. It was the wrong choice made at the worst time, wasting time and resources.

Re: Firefox 78

#250

Post by NikkiA »

amazing_stories wrote: post #206
tandr wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://github.com/Aris-t2/CustomCSSforFx has some tweaks to make it less annoying.

Once I saw the only way to fix this terrible MegaBar was by modifying code that will break later I realized I was no longer the target demographic and switched browsers.

As someone likewise feeling disenfranchised by FF, what did you switch to?
Post reply on HN