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

Firefox 93

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 235 posts

Re: Firefox 93

#141

Post by vimacs2 »

falcolas wrote: post #74
Nextgrid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's yet another thing to install & configure manually. For a browser that boasts about privacy at every possible opportunity I'd expect something as standard & essential (in this day and age) to be included.

> It's yet another thing to install & configure manually. Once. Coming up on 5 years ago now for me. Every time since, I log into sync, and it appears with all of the proper configurations already set up to my preference.

Considering the fact that Firefox has had less than 5% coverage of the browser market for years now, this is not very reassuring. It's also quite frankly missing the point.

It shows a clear case of mission statement in conflict with business model and shakes my confidence of Mozilla as the champions of privacy and freedom they paint themselves as.

Keep in mind that they don't even need to make it built in, they could instead bundle ublock origin as a preinstalled add-on and provide a little bit of money to the developer. It would simultaneously improve the security and browsing experience of many of its users while attracting many new ones and funding the fight against invasive online advertising.

But big daddy Google would get so cross then and Mozilla would be forced to adopt an actually privacy respecting alternative like duckduckgo and lose a lot of their funding.

I don't want to main Brave as I currently do, both because of its use of chromium and my ill feelings of the CEO's donations to political movements against the LGBT community but Mozilla management have lost my confidence over the years despite the actual deveopers remaining world class.

Re: Firefox 93

#142

Post by neurobashing »

pram wrote: post #136
rahoulb wrote: post #131

Slightly off-topic but John Gruber has been writing about the new version of Safari[1] (and it's tabs and how they do or don't work) - and he linked back to some posts of his about Camino, which I'd forgotten about. Camino was the Gecko engine from Firefox in a "proper" Mac UI (unlike Firefox at the time, which was their cross-platform XUL UI). I used to use it as my primary browser and I really liked it. What killed…

I'm not sure how you arrive at Safari "killing" Camino. It was frankly always marginal. You had Mozilla, Firefox, and IE all available on OSX contemporaneously.

well there's Dave Hyatt, co-creator of Camino, who left to work on Safari. That didn't help.

Re: Firefox 93

#143

Post by kreeben »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #138
gpm wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a way to fund development of their salable products, not firefox.

A browser has long been not a saleable product and buying side products is the closest thing you can do to fund its development. Not that it is satisfactory, but if you aren't doing that already then your complaints sound less credible IMO.

>> not a saleable product

Isn't that a lot like saying "those sausages with toothpicks in them at the supermarket" are not saleable products?

Re: Firefox 93

#144

Post by heywherelogingo »

HMH wrote: post #77

Awesome, after reading through the first time contributions I can see my first albeit pretty minor patch is included in this release! Overall contributing has been very pleasant and the people on Mozilla's matrix channels have been helpful getting me on track. But better than taking my word for it, you should try contributing for yourself :)

I started looking into it a little while back, and didn't get much further than pulling the source - my laptop was not up to the task of working on a project that size.

Re: Firefox 93

#145

Post by creese »

streblo wrote: post #91

Here's what I desperately want from Firefox, which I currently have from Chrome: isolated browser profiles tied to an account. I have two browser windows open at all times, one for my personal stuff and one for my work stuff. I want to keep those two windows totally isolated, where I log in with all my work accounts in one window, and all my personal accounts in the other window. Chrome does this by tying the window…

You can also type `about:profiles` in the address bar. This opens a page where you can create profiles and/or launch them in a new window.

Re: Firefox 93

#146

Post by paulryanrogers »

soperj wrote: post #127
gpm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla doesn't seem to be interested in this, but I wonder if there are any individual firefox developers with a patreon?

Could almost just get a patreon together, and then fund a developer from it? Because I think if you put out a job posting, working on firefox independent from Mozilla someone would take you up on it.

There are several Firefox forks supported by donations. LibreWolf and Pale Moon being just two examples.

Inertia and network effects won't change quickly though

Re: Firefox 93

#147

Post by blibble »

cptskippy wrote: post #112
gpm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla doesn't seem to be interested in this, but I wonder if there are any individual firefox developers with a patreon?

> Mozilla doesn't seem to be interested in this As someone who works on the digital payments/processing side of the house for a charity, I can tell you that accepting designations is a can of worms that smaller charities would certainly want to avoid.

it had $438 million in revenue in 2018

it's not a small charity

Re: Firefox 93

#148

Post by blibble »

Nextgrid wrote: post #32

Still no built-in uBlock Origin (or equivalent) despite it being permissively licensed and Mozilla's "commitment" to privacy...

I doubt their primary funding source would approve

(Google)

Re: Firefox 93

#149

Post by pmurt7 »

akie wrote: post #17

Give me a way to pay for Firefox, please, and use the proceeds to hire a full development team that can hopefully catch up and overtake Chrome? Please?

Mitchell Baker (Mozilla CEO) makes 3 million a year. It's actually very profitable for a nonprofit organization, isn't it?

"On the same period, Firefox marketshare was down 85%. When asked about her salary she stated "I learned that my pay was about an 80% discount to market. Meaning that competitive roles elsewhere were paying about 5 times as much. That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to."

This lady then goes on and on talking about "social justice".

Re: Firefox 93

#150

Post by Spivak »

wintermutestwin wrote: post #95
Spivak wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah how dare Mozilla force sites to pay for TLS certificates! It’s a racket I tell you! If they’re going to be required in order to be on the internet they should be free Mozilla: Okay, done.

You should see what godaddy charges to manage SSL for a WP site!

Let me see if I understand this, SSL is bad because one very well known to be shitty hosting provider charges lots of money for it? And we should hold back securing web traffic on the internet until such time as GoDaddy changes their pricing structure?

Look I get it, if I hosted sites on shitty providers and couldn’t change because of corporate BS I would be frustrated too. But “everyone else should change to accommodate my problems” isn’t the right response. It’s the same with crappy SSL middleboxes, I feel for people who have to deal with broken sites because of them but breaking TLS as a workaround can’t be the way forward.

Post reply on HN