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

211–220 of 340 posts

Re: Firefox 94

#211

Post by gildas »

EastOfTruth wrote: post #173
iyn wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for voicing this perspective! I've switched to Firefox ~3-4 years ago and I've seen considerable progress (on multiple platforms). I'm really grateful that we - internet users - have a great alternative to corporate-backed browsers (Chrome, Edge, Safari). Thanks Firefox team!

Massive regression on Firefox Mobile... they block 99% of extensions nowadays (only about 12 out of thousands are allowed).

You can install other extensions by using Firefox Nightly [1] which is quite stable actually.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...

Re: Firefox 94

#213

Post by sumtechguy »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #37
m_eiman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hasn't Microsoft created a system service for this? It's just inefficient to have each and every installed app run a service… I suppose they take care of it for Windows Store apps, but I don't see why they couldn't make a service for other apps too. Same on the Mac, of course.

They promised a proper package manager and repositories way back in the day before Windows 8 was released. You probably know the crap you got instead.

winget

They have sort of started to do it. But it seems to be very adhoc in how it is supported. A couple of packages I use are 2-3 versions behind in that system.

Re: Firefox 94

#214

Post by kaba0 »

y7 wrote: post #111
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…

> but why would you? Because updates can introduce breaking changes. And potentially new security vulnerabilities.

So you prefer old and known/already exploited security vulnerabilities?

Re: Firefox 94

#215

Post by mavroprovato »

BMorearty wrote: post #196
poidos wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with Chrome's tab groups, but I use tree style tabs [0] on Firefox which allows physical grouping of tabs, albeit after a significant layout change. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...

Thanks, I looked at that one but I’m not looking for something that takes up more space, either horizontally or vertically. I like how Chrome’s tab groups just collapse your tabs along the top tab bar.

Maybe then this is more to your liking? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/panorama-tab-...

(I too don't know how Chrome tab groups work)

Re: Firefox 94

#216

Post by [deleted] »

gameswithgo wrote: post #31

It has made me really sad that I have had to quite using Firefox, as I've enjoyed the technical improvements they have been making, but the new ads in the address bar thing is just non negotiable, I will not be a part of that.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 94

#217

Post by mlindner »

I wish they would fix multitouch on Mac, it's been bad for ages and it acts like you're on a phone rather than a computer.

Re: Firefox 94

#218

Post by anonymousab »

gildas wrote: post #211
EastOfTruth wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Massive regression on Firefox Mobile... they block 99% of extensions nowadays (only about 12 out of thousands are allowed).

You can install other extensions by using Firefox Nightly [1] which is quite stable actually. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...

The Collections process is very cumbersome, and I've found that the Collections pages are a bit buggy - for instance, the adding-to-a-collection part uses a separate search bar that doesn't even find a large swath of store extensions for some reason.

It works, but is a decidedly poor experience.

Re: Firefox 94

#219

Post by anonymousab »

kaba0 wrote: post #214
y7 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but why would you? Because updates can introduce breaking changes. And potentially new security vulnerabilities.

So you prefer old and known/already exploited security vulnerabilities?

Foregoing security updates to avoid breaking changes and severe functionality regressions is a completely valid choice that should be wholly left up to the user.

Re: Firefox 94

#220

Post by spaghettiandm »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #180
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 groan whenever I see a Firefox post on the front page. -"X moved Y pixels making Firefox UNUSABLE! So now I use Brave." -"Mozilla is run by a bunch of SJW idiots because they ran their CEO off. So now I run Brave." (I had to look into this, as I wasn't paying attention at the time. They picked a new CEO who cared so passionately about removing the right of gay people to get married he even donated his own money to…

>-"Mozilla is run by a bunch of SJW idiots because they ran their CEO off. So now I run Brave." (I had to look into this, as I wasn't paying attention at the time. They picked a new CEO who cared so passionately about removing the right of gay people to get married he even donated his own money to the cause. That was a dumb hill to die on. Now he's an anti-masker who actually runs Brave.)

It wasn't a hill to die on, it was a private donation from his private bank account as a private person. The funding page got leaked and people saw that he donated. And it wasn't removing the right for gays to marry, it was to keep the proposal from becoming a law. You might not realize that some people hold very strong religious beliefs about marriage, something the vast majority of Americans historically had, and for this reason gays previously generally only had something called a civil union prior to 2015.

Post reply on HN