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

Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#41

Post by Ericson2314 »

konjin wrote: post #24
gcblkjaidfj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me tell you the future of using brave: you give chrome engine total rule of the law for web "standards". Google can mold the web to their desires. If you use firefox, google have to at least play nice. What's the point of using a browser frontend (used to be called chrome, but i guess google stole even the words) if tomorrow all the content depend on google-owned DRM? You will only be able to use your fancy ipfs…

Let me tell you about Mozilla. They get 90% of their funding through google. Google is their customer, you are their product. Anyone who thinks Mozilla is independent is in deep denial.

No, if the point is staving off anti-trust, the US government is the customer, competition is the product, and Mozilla is surprisingly unconstrained as the first two bulls lock horns.

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#42

Post by m-p-3 »

jjcon wrote: post #27
gcblkjaidfj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me tell you the future of using brave: you give chrome engine total rule of the law for web "standards". Google can mold the web to their desires. If you use firefox, google have to at least play nice. What's the point of using a browser frontend (used to be called chrome, but i guess google stole even the words) if tomorrow all the content depend on google-owned DRM? You will only be able to use your fancy ipfs…

> If you use firefox, google have to at least play nice. A browser with the same market share as ‘Samsung internet’ that is primarily funded by google? They have less voice than brave, who at least maintains their independence (and their own forks/build processes). Safari is the only other real contender with 5x the market share of Firefox (and counting).

> Safari is the only other real contender with 5x the market share of Firefox (and counting).

And only available on Apple devices.

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#43

Post by hda2 »

bawolff wrote: post #38
isaacimagine wrote: post #3

There are lots of very interesting and useful protocols, from ipfs to gopher, hyper to i2p, from freenet to zeronet, etc. - I think it would be cool if browsers added an extensible framework for adding new protocols.

Isn't that what extensions are?

they used to be, but not anymore. webextensions are usually not capable enough to support most of these protocols unless said protocols were designed to support the "web"

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#44

Post by dleslie »

Isthatablackgsd wrote: post #21
dleslie wrote: post #2

There hasn't been a comment or status change to this bug in three years. I've been giving Brave a shot due to their recent addition of first-class support for IPFS, and the numerous positive HN comments. It's... So much faster. However, it does a poor job of blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness. One common response regarding performance woes on…

> Decentraleyes I would recommend LocalCDN over Decentraleyes. They covers CDNs (more than Decentraleyes) and various libraries such as javascripts (like jQuery) and frameworks.

Thanks, I'll try that.

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#45

Post by nonbirithm »

mp3geek wrote: post #37
dleslie wrote: post #2

There hasn't been a comment or status change to this bug in three years. I've been giving Brave a shot due to their recent addition of first-class support for IPFS, and the numerous positive HN comments. It's... So much faster. However, it does a poor job of blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness. One common response regarding performance woes on…

> So much faster. However, it does a poor job of blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness. What issues are you having with the blocking? /Disclaimer, Brave webcompat support

Not OP, but it doesn't block Twitter sponsored posts for me.

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#46

Post by dleslie »

mp3geek wrote: post #37
dleslie wrote: post #2

There hasn't been a comment or status change to this bug in three years. I've been giving Brave a shot due to their recent addition of first-class support for IPFS, and the numerous positive HN comments. It's... So much faster. However, it does a poor job of blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness. One common response regarding performance woes on…

> So much faster. However, it does a poor job of blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness. What issues are you having with the blocking? /Disclaimer, Brave webcompat support

Reddit, Twitter and other social media sponsored posts and ads are not blocked; and I saw a YouTube ad for the first time in ages.

Generally, I run uBlock with all-but-regional block lists enabled.

Oh, and Brave has its own ads.

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#47

Post by rangoon626 »

pythux wrote: post #14
Funes- wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's... So much faster. However, it does a poor job of blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness. You can block ads just by editing your hosts file. There's no need to depend on any browser's particular functionality in order to get rid of them. Nor on extra hardware (Pi-hole), for that matter. I have a cron job download a prefilled copy from a pop…

Blocking by hostnames is a big part of adblocking, but if you want to really block all ads and also not break the Web, you need an in-browser tech to do things like element hiding, scriptlet injections, etc. Which cannot be done via host files.

The other thing is that hosts file records appear to not hold in Firefox by default because of the https everywhere and the secure dns features they added.

Drives me bonkers sometimes when I forget to turn off

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#48

Post by haha_lul »

dleslie wrote: post #46
mp3geek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So much faster. However, it does a poor job of blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness. What issues are you having with the blocking? /Disclaimer, Brave webcompat support

Reddit, Twitter and other social media sponsored posts and ads are not blocked; and I saw a YouTube ad for the first time in ages. Generally, I run uBlock with all-but-regional block lists enabled. Oh, and Brave has its own ads.

I don't like BAT and wish it could be removed like any other extension, but it's opt in?

Also, what's stopping you from installing uBlock on Brave? Considering Chrome doesn't ship with any adblocker, is it not beneficial (given your preference for adblocking) to provide an adblocker out of the box, given you still have the ability to use any extensions you would use with any other browser?

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#49

Post by dleslie »

haha_lul wrote: post #48
dleslie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit, Twitter and other social media sponsored posts and ads are not blocked; and I saw a YouTube ad for the first time in ages. Generally, I run uBlock with all-but-regional block lists enabled. Oh, and Brave has its own ads.

I don't like BAT and wish it could be removed like any other extension, but it's opt in? Also, what's stopping you from installing uBlock on Brave? Considering Chrome doesn't ship with any adblocker, is it not beneficial (given your preference for adblocking) to provide an adblocker out of the box, given you still have the ability to use any extensions you would use with any other browser?

I suppose I opted in as a result of just clicking through some dialogues during install.

The only strong reason I have to keep using Firefox is to support ongoing development of an alternative to chrome's rendering engine on PC.

Re: Support for the IPFS Protocol – Firefox Bugzilla

#50

Post by mp3geek »

dleslie wrote: post #46
mp3geek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So much faster. However, it does a poor job of blocking advertisements and trackers. I'll be going back to Firefox for that reason, I can suffer the slowness. What issues are you having with the blocking? /Disclaimer, Brave webcompat support

Reddit, Twitter and other social media sponsored posts and ads are not blocked; and I saw a YouTube ad for the first time in ages. Generally, I run uBlock with all-but-regional block lists enabled. Oh, and Brave has its own ads.

Is shields enabled on these sites?, Enabling ads/trackers = Aggressive. Regarding social, we have options to disable third-party twitter/facebook/linked in for addtional privacy.

I would try in private window mode, and ensure shields ads/trackers is enabled.

Post reply on HN