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

171–180 of 235 posts

Re: Firefox 93

#171

Post by cute_boi »

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 :)

To be honest firefox community is way better than chrome. They got lot of helpful people in matrix channel. Someone from firefox community does twitch live stream titled Joy of Coding. I am also looking forward to submit my own patch in firefox for implementing some cdp related thing..

Re: Firefox 93

#172

Post by asddubs »

HMH wrote: post #26
huuuz wrote: post #2

How are downloads performed over http "potentially malicious"?

This would be massively annoying for my local network. I trust that I do not mitm myself for malicious reasons and really do not feel like setting up certs on my lan... Talking about certs, nowadays it seems browsers want to make you believe that self signed certs are some diabolical work straight from hell. Using self signed certs with websockets on Firefox is actually nearly impossible [1]. [1]: https://bugzilla.mo…

I do wish there was a way to disable all those https-only protections in a browser for development on the local machine. Yes I know for localhost they are sometimes disabled (but not always, like e.g. samesite=none cookies), but sometimes you want to test cross-domain interactions using a tool like dnsmasq, and it gets to be a real hassle

Re: Firefox 93

#173

Post by gsnedders »

neurobashing wrote: post #142
pram wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean Hyatt is also co-creator of Firefox, and Firefox survived. (IIRC he also did the tabbing implementations for both Camino and Firefox!)

Re: Firefox 93

#174

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

pmurt7 wrote: post #149
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 commi…

i find the role of a "ceo" in mozilla as offensive as anything. for that matter any "management" role because it should be devs earning a buck while building cool software. nothing more, no paper pushing "managers" and ceos. why does mozilla need them anyways? who is forcing them to have one?

Re: Firefox 93

#175

Post by asddubs »

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…

doesn't brave just substitute in its own ads with their crypto scheme? that doesn't really strike me as better than just not blocking ads by default

Re: Firefox 93

#176

Post by SECProto »

Someone1234 wrote: post #154
gardaani wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From that link:

> AV1 Image File Format (AVIF) is an image file format specification for storing images or image sequences compressed with AV1 in the HEIF file format.

Re: Firefox 93

#177

Post by sciurus »

akie wrote: post #110
mijailt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://donate.mozilla.org ?

Mozilla is not the same as Firefox, unfortunately. If I remember correctly Mozilla itself is relatively flush with money (through a deal they have with Google) and doesn't really need the money. Their chair is paid extremely well, in any case [1]. A lot of Mozilla's money seems to be spent on executive pay, overhead, and questionable side projects. Not so much (or not enough) on browser development, it seems. I'd MUC…

This is on the right track but a bit confused. There are two entities:

1) The nonprofit Mozilla foundation

2) The Mozilla corporation

The foundation owns the corporation.

The corporation develops Firefox and is primarily funded by the Google search deal. It also develops pocket and the VPN and gets some funding from their sales.

The foundation is funded by grants and donations, both from individuals and from other organizations (including from the corporation).

Re: Firefox 93

#178

Post by dbg31415 »

Any performance improvements, or will it still use like 50x more battery and turn my MBP into a toaster when I hop on a video call?

Re: Firefox 93

#179

Post by Zardoz84 »

pupppet wrote: post #151
yboris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Worse... When you are forced to support IE11, and keep limited to the old good JPEG.

At least, JPEG-XL offers a solution on this side, like store as JPEG-XL and serve as old JPEG to IE11 users. Now, if only there was a JPEG-XL implementation for Java...

Re: Firefox 93

#180

Post by vimacs2 »

asddubs wrote: post #175
vimacs2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

doesn't brave just substitute in its own ads with their crypto scheme? that doesn't really strike me as better than just not blocking ads by default

Regardless of your feelings on crypto, it absolutely is superior than the default. With Brave, you only need to trust them. With Firefox, you need to trust every Tom, Dick, and Harry with access to Google Analytics.

Also, you can choose to disable all the crypto and still get the built in adblocking. With Firefox, you can only turn to add-ons.

Post reply on HN