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

Firefox 94

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 340 posts

Re: Firefox 94

#141

Post by calvinmorrison »

jitl wrote: post #94
sergiomattei wrote: post #82

My God, this thread turned into a cesspool of whining, bitching and utter negativity to what seems like a great update. How about we praise the positives as well? They listed a slew of performance improvements and a battery usage improvement on macOS. Firefox team: keep it up.

I agree. It's an outstanding achievement that Firefox remains competitive with Chrome - and even exceeds it - given the disparity of resources between Mozilla and Google. The Firefox community also tends to be more responsive on their bugtracker than the Chrome/Chromium team. (seriously, great work y'all) (also, they've even caught up to Chrome in version numbers! joke)

I'm fairly certain Google just pays Mozilla money to avoid any claims about being a monopoly browser.

Re: Firefox 94

#142

Post by nanis »

suprfsat wrote: post #123
nanis wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no one with a clue at Mozilla? How much worse can they make this browser? If I wanted an auto-updating key-logging tool on my systems, I'd have sold my soul to Chrome already. I had upgraded before seeing this ... In preferences, you have the following options: > Allow Firefox to: > -------------------------------------------------------- > [x] Automatically install updates (recommended) > [ ] Check for upda…

Is it actually key-logging or are you just making things up

Version 92[1] got one step closer. Extrapolating current trends, I shudder to think what will be in version 99.

> Firefox will send Mozilla search queries (what you are typing into the address bar), and city-level location (what's nearby and relevant, determined from your IP address). Firefox also informs the service if you click on a provided suggestion.

Combine this with "studies" which were never made public, extra avenues of telemetry that one finds out about waaaayyy after the fact etc, the last couple of years have seen Firefox become increasingly hostile to users.

[1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/navigate-web-faster-fir...

Re: Firefox 94

#143

Post by rndgermandude »

nanis wrote: post #90
hoseja wrote: post #10

>On Windows, there will now be fewer interruptions because Firefox won’t prompt you for updates. Instead, a background agent will download and install updates even if Firefox is closed. How considerate of them, I felt I didn't have enough auto-updating background agents yet.

Is there no one with a clue at Mozilla? How much worse can they make this browser? If I wanted an auto-updating key-logging tool on my systems, I'd have sold my soul to Chrome already. I had upgraded before seeing this ... In preferences, you have the following options: > Allow Firefox to: > -------------------------------------------------------- > [x] Automatically install updates (recommended) > [ ] Check for upda…

>key-logging tool

But what is this accusation of key-logging now? Where did that come from?

Re: Firefox 94

#144

Post by ruined »

nanis wrote: post #90
hoseja wrote: post #10

>On Windows, there will now be fewer interruptions because Firefox won’t prompt you for updates. Instead, a background agent will download and install updates even if Firefox is closed. How considerate of them, I felt I didn't have enough auto-updating background agents yet.

Is there no one with a clue at Mozilla? How much worse can they make this browser? If I wanted an auto-updating key-logging tool on my systems, I'd have sold my soul to Chrome already. I had upgraded before seeing this ... In preferences, you have the following options: > Allow Firefox to: > -------------------------------------------------------- > [x] Automatically install updates (recommended) > [ ] Check for upda…

if you want a vision of the future, imagine a background service updating a web browser, forever

Re: Firefox 94

#145

Post by nextaccountic »

_jal wrote: post #22
hoseja wrote: post #10

>On Windows, there will now be fewer interruptions because Firefox won’t prompt you for updates. Instead, a background agent will download and install updates even if Firefox is closed. How considerate of them, I felt I didn't have enough auto-updating background agents yet.

Applications that feel entitled to resources after you tell them to go away lead me to move them into a VM just to contain all the crap and sprawl and bullshit. The number of apps in this category just keeps on growing. I'm starting to feel like I should just run Qubes.

This is just for Windows. On Linux, Firefox doesn't self-update because distros already handle updates.

When Firefox releases to Windows Store (https://www.thurrott.com/cloud/web-browsers/mozilla-firefox/...) they will probably let Windows update it, and use this self-updater only for standalone installs.

Re: Firefox 94

#146

Post by FriedrichN »

krzyk wrote: post #129
FriedrichN wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's also shrinking to be almost the only reason I run Firefox. I absolutely loathe the constant tinkering with UI and settings, they just can't seem to leave stuff alone. The ghacks user.js does get rid of a lot of nuisances, but I also know some people also want to get rid of the user.js config option.

What UI changes? I run firefox nightly for ages and minor sizing changes are barely noticeable. The biggest change was moving of address bar lower and tabs higher.

Some that come to mind:

* completely changing the settings UI;

* the very annoying "present" icon that appears after updates;

* constantly messing the address bar in how it works and what it searches;

* constantly re-enabling stuff like searching in Amazon and Google;

* changing the menu to the hamburger menu.

There's probably more that I forgot. But it seems every two or three months or so I need to make effort to turn off some feature I don't want. Stuff like the stupid pocket functionality no one ever asked for.

Re: Firefox 94

#147

Post by throwamon »

bogwog wrote: post #99
apocalyptic0n3 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, this has always been an infuriating default for me. If I hit CMD+Q, that means I want the program to quit. Not prompt me or make me hold it down or use a different command. CMD+Q = Quit on Mac. Overriding that behavior is annoying and one of the first things I disable on nearly every program I install.

Do you also use CMD+W to close tabs/modal windows? Because I do, and it's very easy to accidentally press Q instead of W. Losing dozens of tabs because of that is so damn infuriating that it ruins my entire day when it happens.

Or worse, you just want to use literally any other shortcut (Ctrl+Tab/Ctrl+Shift+Tab/Ctrl+1/Ctrl+A).

Re: Firefox 94

#148

Post by lvh »

hulitu wrote: post #132
Ajedi32 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO this is the correct behavior. Programs should never bother the user with prompts or interruptions of any sort unless absolutely necessary. "Do you want to install this security-critical update to your computer's largest attack surface?" does not rise to that level. The answer is obviously yes, so just do it and don't bother the user. There's probably an advanced setting buried somewhere if you _really_ want to tu…

Do you want to install this backdoor ? No, installing the so called updates in background will not be alowed.

How do you validate Firefox updates?

Re: Firefox 94

#149

Post by yesimahuman »

killertcell wrote: post #75
marcodiego wrote: post #14

Firefox: the last remaining mostly independent, maintained and reasonably popular browser. Even if it were inferior in any aspect to other options, I'd still use it for the above mentioned reasons.

As luck would have it: it's inferior in most aspects. Security, Usability (UI, responsiveness), Performance, Defaults (Privacy)...

And don't forget support for the latest Web APIs. Fewer and fewer new, heavy web-apps work on it. I love everything else about Firefox but if they can't keep up on the API side it's going to increasingly impede my workflow.

Re: Firefox 94

#150

Post by calvinmorrison »

nullspace wrote: post #46

I am typing this from Firefox, which I switched back to right after Quantum. I don't want to give an impression that I'm a shill, but I'm getting more and more intrigued by Brave every day. I think they made the right call by focusing on crypto, their search indexing technique is very unique (and it works!), as is their BAT attention token. They are _trying_ to doing something different, Firefox is not. What I instea…

> more intrigued by Brave every day

My long term question is - will there end up being one browser implementation of the virtual machine? Browser rendering engines are basically that these days, a big virtual machine for web apps. Is there value having a separate implementation? Some languages that run inside a virtual machine only have a single implementation. Is that bad?

Would it be bad if Mozilla used the internet-vm (why even call it Blink at this point?)

Post reply on HN