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

151–160 of 235 posts

Re: Firefox 93

#151

Post by pupppet »

yboris wrote: post #10
theandrewbailey wrote: post #7

> Firefox now supports the new AVIF image format PARTY! I've been waiting for this for a long time. The last big hurdle for this was that color spaces weren't applied correctly. If you haven't taken a look at AVIF, do. You can get a similar looking image in AVIF at half the size as a JPEG. I find AVIF's image artifacts preferable to JPEG's.

I'm looking forward to the wide adoption of JPEG XL (.jxl - "jixel") file format. It's the format that will replace JPEG! https://jpegxl.info/

Oy...those poor tags will soon be just stuffed with different file formats as we try to accommodate all browsers.

Re: Firefox 93

#152

Post by no_time »

Lendal wrote: post #55
kongin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edge is a chrome skin. They don't have engineers working on a browser, they have engineers working on a _theme_.

Really? So every time you bring in a dependency on a library written by someone else, your software is just a theme or wrapper? I guess that's one way to look at it.

if your python assignment is solved by

import solution

and some additional fluff (tracking,telemetry and other anti features in Edge's case) did you really do your homework?

Re: Firefox 93

#154

Post by Someone1234 »

gardaani wrote: post #114
theandrewbailey wrote: post #7

> Firefox now supports the new AVIF image format PARTY! I've been waiting for this for a long time. The last big hurdle for this was that color spaces weren't applied correctly. If you haven't taken a look at AVIF, do. You can get a similar looking image in AVIF at half the size as a JPEG. I find AVIF's image artifacts preferable to JPEG's.

Firefox 93 doesn't seem to support animated AVIF images. I have few AVIF examples animating correctly on Chrome 94 but only showing stills on Firefox 93. Edit: I found few examples here: https://colinbendell.github.io/webperf/animated-gif-decode/a...

What is really odd is that if you go to the AVIF Wikipedia entry animation isn't even listed as a feature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#AV1_Image_File_Format_(AVI...

When people were comparing it to GIF I specifically tried to check if it supported animations, but came up with little.

Re: Firefox 93

#155

Post by Spivak »

noteboom wrote: post #134
Spivak wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wildcard certificates are the much much easier case. You don't have to mess with your web server or routes at all. You just hook up certbot with your DNS provider and say "get me a cert for '*.mydomain.business", run the renew in a cronjob (which certbot does automatically by default now) and never touch it again. I've had certbot running for like 4 years with no interruption with this setup. The Venn Diagram of peop…

Not all DNS providers are supported by certbot, so sometimes it's impossible to automate. It's not infrequently that I come across sites with expired certificates nowadays. And what of those who have left their old site (that has no need for TLS) online for years without ever knowing 'insecure' HTTP is being deprecated? I don't think their sites breaking and showing warnings should be acceptable when the security ben…

It doesn’t really matter if all DNS providers are supported because you can just delegate your _acme_challenge zone to any DNS provider that is, like Route53 or to your own DNS server.

Re: Firefox 93

#156

Post by intelMgmntEnema »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #115
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…

If you want the exact equivalent, use Firefox profiles (-p at startup, or install the profile switcher addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switc... ). But Firefox has a much better feature: tab containers. You can attach a label to a tab, and only tabs sharing this label will share states, such as cookies, cache, localstorage and so on. This means you don't need to open a new window. You can…

>>>You can use it by activating a few settings in about:config

Not. On. Android.

Re: Firefox 93

#157

Post by anonymousab »

Liquid_Fire wrote: post #100
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…

Firefox has supported this for decades, it just doesn't have a very nice UI for managing it. Simply start it with "firefox -P" and create two separate profiles (call them "work" and "personal"). Then just start two instances of Firefox, with "firefox -P work" and "firefox -P personal". They will be totally isolated - cookies, history, addons, everything.

The UX for profiles is fairly awful compared to chrome. There's a web extension to make things better but it requires a companion application.

Ideally they'd expose more options through web extension APIs or build in a native profile switcher in the main ui rather than as a command line flag and a dedicated about: page. It'd also be cool if the account containers could be customized to behave like profiles e.g. isolate history, but that gets a classic "we need to do this yak shave first" response whenever it gets brought up.

Re: Firefox 93

#158

Post by maccard »

dtech wrote: post #130
cptskippy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Their nonprofit is already accepting donations and they are already selling services. I can't be that hard to "sell" a cosmetic Firefox Premium upgrade, although it might not be used enough to be worth it.

Why would you think that funds from firefox premium would only go to development for firefox? Do you think money you spend on Azure is ringfenced for Azure development and isn't ever spent on Microsoft Gaming (for example).

Re: Firefox 93

#159

Post by asddubs »

yboris wrote: post #10
theandrewbailey wrote: post #7

> Firefox now supports the new AVIF image format PARTY! I've been waiting for this for a long time. The last big hurdle for this was that color spaces weren't applied correctly. If you haven't taken a look at AVIF, do. You can get a similar looking image in AVIF at half the size as a JPEG. I find AVIF's image artifacts preferable to JPEG's.

I'm looking forward to the wide adoption of JPEG XL (.jxl - "jixel") file format. It's the format that will replace JPEG! https://jpegxl.info/

isn't AV1 also a contender for that as a lossy compression algorithm?

Re: Firefox 93

#160

Post by falcolas »

vimacs2 wrote: post #141
falcolas wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> But big daddy Google would get so cross

I don't think Google would be as mad as every other publisher on the internet who relies on ads for their living. They would go on campaigns to block Firefox from their websites entirely. They already rail against adblockers with full-site popups and blocking content until you disable your adblocker, making adblocking a default would escalate the situation exceptionally quickly.

Firefox's marketshare would drop even more quickly if people couldn't visit their favorite sites with it (and were likely directed to Chrome or Edge).

Without an alternative, readily available method of monetizing websites, it's realistically going to have to remain opt-in (i.e. installing uBlock).

Post reply on HN