91–100 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put any preferred tweaks in a user.js file in the profile directory, // commented with meanings and reasons, and save wetware memory.
When I was young and enthusiastic I used to maintain user and chrome CSS overrides like that. Synced via DropBox no less! Now I am older and tired of doing the symlinking every time I setup a new install of Ff.
I've been moving around the same firefox install since Opera died.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all streaming. Twitch, YouTube. Running any of those on Firefox, vs. other browsers, is a lot hotter. I did a post about it and according to Apple's "Energy Usage" Firefox was like 50x higher than Safari and 30x higher than Chrome on the same sort of streaming call. Try it for yourself next time you're on a Zoom call. Firefox is my browser of choice, but so annoying that they don't take battery use / optimizatio…
This is what happens when apple forces browsers to use Safari's rendering engine. Could it be better, sure. Use an OS that allows Firefox to use its own renderer if it bugs you that much.
I want my Mac Hardware, it feels nice. I want to use Firefox, I trust it and I like that I can automatically clear cookies and history on close... The fact that Chrome pushes you to sign in is so fundamentally offensive to me. Just super-creepy. So I want Firefox on Mac, but I have no strong feelings towards Gecko one way or the other, if that's what's causing my computer to over heat... wish they'd just swap it out for Webkit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've used it to put video from web based video chat on top of a full screen video, while still keeping focus on the main video. I mainly browse with a whole bunch of tabs open instead of multiple windows, so it's useful to pull a video out of a page and be able to navigate away and continue watching instead of dragging to a new window which would take up more space and get lost more easily. I've also used it for chec…
Hmm I couldn't get it to work with video chat so I should try again
Is there any privacy benifit to use containers now with the new isolations built into firefox? I'm using cookie autodelete + Containers, So now its either isolate and keep them or Isolate and delete them. I quite like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all streaming. Twitch, YouTube. Running any of those on Firefox, vs. other browsers, is a lot hotter. I did a post about it and according to Apple's "Energy Usage" Firefox was like 50x higher than Safari and 30x higher than Chrome on the same sort of streaming call. Try it for yourself next time you're on a Zoom call. Firefox is my browser of choice, but so annoying that they don't take battery use / optimizatio…
This is what happens when apple forces browsers to use Safari's rendering engine. Could it be better, sure. Use an OS that allows Firefox to use its own renderer if it bugs you that much.
You're also mixing up symptoms. If all browsers were forced to use the same rendering engine, you'd see little divergence of CPU/energy usage. The user is seeing a wild divergence—which is what you might expect when browsers are using different rendering engines.
You're also mixing up talking points. People have accused Safari of being many things, but being profligate with CPU/energy usage is certainly not one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have nothing against straight ads. I do. They are actively hostile to the user experience. I will criticise any update to software that deliberately makes the user experience worse.
Ok, well suggest a different way they can make money then. No, donations are not cutting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what happens when apple forces browsers to use Safari's rendering engine. Could it be better, sure. Use an OS that allows Firefox to use its own renderer if it bugs you that much.
So it's a Webkit issue? Honestly haven't got a clue what caused it. Just wish they'd fix it. Love all the privacy features of Firefox... but I have no inherent love for Gecko. Like that's all behind the scenes stuff. Does it matter, from a privacy perspective? Any insight into the aversion to using Webkit? Chrome uses Webkit on MacOS and Blink on Windows, yeah? Seems like the way to go. I want my Mac Hardware, it fee…
Firefox/Gecko has an excellent rendering engine but Mozilla has often been late to the party with hardware acceleration on Mac.
It's also worth noting that Safari doesn't necessarily support all the same video codecs as Firefox, so for example Zoom might be using hardware accelerated h264 in Safari whereas in Firefox might use a more advanced codec (e.g. VP9) for which your MacBook might have no hardware acceleration capability. If this is the case, Firefox ought to give users the option to disable support for these non-accelerated codecs when running on battery power.
And ads in the address bar search results. https://twitter.com/CohanRobinson/status/1364172683118866433 E: saved you a click on my own link. In about:config you can disable this by setting the following to false browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsored browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.showSponsoredTopSites
I would pay for an ad-free experience so they have a stable source of income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy. What do you want them to do, invent money out of thin air? And it's still Firefox: if you're upset enough to consider "migration to a different browser", why not instead get upset en…
> You realise how weird this sounds, right? Presumably you donate because you care about the Mozilla mission, and those ads are there because donations alone aren't enough, and relying purely on Google's money is also not a great strategy. What do you want them to do, invent money out of thin air? If Facebook made 32.03 per user last year, I think it's fair to say that Mozilla will probably do even better if they off…
Near 100% of Mozilla users would agree to get the $36/year subscription?