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

221–230 of 340 posts

Re: Firefox 94

#221

Post by hawski »

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…

It is indeed sad.

Regarding standard discussion patters I see it often. I imagine sometimes a pinned comment that would outline those. Along with all the usual corrections and corrections to those corrections.

Re: Firefox 94

#222

Post by aembleton »

Archelaos wrote: post #115

I am wondering what it would take to seriously fork Firefox (like the MySQL/MariaDB fork), if there is so much discontent with Firefox in the HN community?

There is Waterfox and Palemoon forks. I think there are some very vocal complainers on HN, but most of us who use Firefox are probably happy enough with it.

Re: Firefox 94

#223

Post by adduc »

jjulius wrote: post #184
Maxious wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox Suggest sends Mozilla search terms and information about engagement with Firefox Suggest, some of which may be shared with partners to provide and improve the suggested content. https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2021/09/15/data-and-firefox-su... > To deliver smarter contextual suggestions, Firefox will need to send Mozilla new data, specifically, what you type into the search bar, city-level location data to kn…

For anybody who needs clarification, this is opt-in only at the moment. From the second link: > As always, we believe people should be in control of their web experience, so Firefox Suggest will be a customizable feature. > We’ll begin offering smarter contextual suggestions to a percentage of people in the U.S. as an opt-in experience.

Despite Mozilla's claim that Firefox Suggest is opt-in, many users (myself included) found the setting enabled by default when it initially shipped.

I'd recommend checking your settings to see if sponsored suggestions are enabled.

Re: Firefox 94

#224

Post by throw10920 »

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.

How about we avoid making sweeping overgeneralizations in an emotionally-manipulative way to try to guilt-trip others into making positive comments, and actually address the points that the other comments made?

This comment is rather anti-intellectual, and I'd much rather see the "cesspool of whining, bitching and utter negativity" that has actual thought put behind it than something empty and meaningless (actually, worse: something underhanded) like this.

Re: Firefox 94

#225

Post by jpfed »

hawski wrote: post #221
LarryDarrell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is indeed sad. Regarding standard discussion patters I see it often. I imagine sometimes a pinned comment that would outline those. Along with all the usual corrections and corrections to those corrections.

See, this is why deadhorse.com should exist and do the thing that I outlined here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bg8vc/what_websi...

Re: Firefox 94

#226

Post by wvenable »

m_eiman wrote: post #13
lemoncookiechip wrote: post #7

> 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. I rather they didn't. EDIT: Ah good, they have an option in the General Settings to disable the background updater.

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.

I assume they're going to use the Task Scheduler like Google, Dropbox, Microsoft, etc, etc use for updates.

Re: Firefox 94

#227

Post by RussianCow »

anonymousab wrote: post #219
kaba0 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is left up to the user—you can disable auto-updates if you so wish. But it seems completely reasonable to have them be enabled by default.

Re: Firefox 94

#228

Post by throw10920 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #80
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.

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…

I don't buy the claim that "Programs should never bother the user with prompts or interruptions of any sort unless absolutely necessary." because there are many different ways that you can spin "absolutely necessary" that end up being harmful to the user, and lots of things that aren't "absolutely necessary" that I still want my computer to interrupt me for.

I'd stop right at "auto-installation of updates with security fixes is the correct default", because that's very solid.

Re: Firefox 94

#229

Post by drxzcl »

spaghettiandm wrote: post #220
LarryDarrell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

There are a lot of Mozilla developers and users that are directly harmed by legislation like this or are close to people that are directly harmed. “You might not realize” that these people also hold very strong beliefs about this.

He displayed extremely poor judgement. The fact that it was a personal donation does not exempt him from accountability.

Re: Firefox 94

#230

Post by mongol »

spaghettiandm wrote: post #220
LarryDarrell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> And it wasn't removing the right for gays to marry, it was to keep the proposal from becoming a law.

Additionally, it is not about the right to marry, it is about marriage as an institution and what is meant with it. Everyone had equal rights to marry also before, it is just that gays do not want to marry somone from the opposite sex.

Post reply on HN