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

241–250 of 340 posts

Re: Firefox 94

#241

Post by pomian »

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...

On android, you can keep a copy of Firefox 68.1, ESR, ready to run. If you run in desktop mode, you can use all your favorite old plugins. Then use a Nightly version, for daily browsing, if you are worried about up to date security and features. (ESR= extended service release.)

Re: Firefox 94

#242

Post by freediver »

tapoxi wrote: post #168
calvinmorrison wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 interne…

Every time this discussion appears on HN, the argument is that Gecko needs to exist because otherwise Blink will dominate, and Blink is overwhelmingly controlled by Google. But I think that's the wrong solution, it just means that we need to decouple Blink from Google and put it in the hands of a neutral, nonprofit third-party. This is arguably what the Mozilla Foundation should have been.

If someone wants to make this argument, it is actually WebKit, not Gecko, that is currently the balancing act on the web. WebKit is about 18% and Gecko around 3% browser share (mostly thanks to iOS). Also WebKit is currently trending up (thanks to success of M1) and Gecko is trending lower.

Re: Firefox 94

#243

Post by suriyaG »

spaghettiandm wrote: post #232
drxzcl wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is donating to a cause you believe in extremely poor judgement? > “You might not realize” The tone of my post wasn't the friendliest it could have been I agree, but I get really annoyed when people imply that those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, which from a Christian perspective is very clear, are evil.

I think, the point where this logic misses is when somebody, with such christian belief, actively goes out and tries to vilify and fight against those who get married in a way that they disagree with.

Re: Firefox 94

#244

Post by EastOfTruth »

pomian wrote: post #241
gildas wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

On android, you can keep a copy of Firefox 68.1, ESR, ready to run. If you run in desktop mode, you can use all your favorite old plugins. Then use a Nightly version, for daily browsing, if you are worried about up to date security and features. (ESR= extended service release.)

That's what I do, but even this ESR isn't supported anymore.

Re: Firefox 94

#245

Post by ryanianian »

throw10920 wrote: post #228
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…

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 securi…

The key annoyance is FTUEs for updates. Mobile apps are terrible about this.

And updates that don't install until you open the program. Sparkle apps on macOS do this and it drives me nuts.

If you're going to update or want my attention about a new thing, have a red dot somewhere that is not conspicuous. Don't get in the way of a user trying to be a user. This is one thing that the Slack app gets absolutely right.

Firefox toes the line. New versions occasionally pop up a new window. It's easy to close but jarring. At least the updates happen mostly transparently and tend to not radically change appearance or behavior. They're bringing this experience to Windows now.

Re: Firefox 94

#246

Post by drxzcl »

spaghettiandm wrote: post #232
drxzcl wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is donating to a cause you believe in extremely poor judgement? > “You might not realize” The tone of my post wasn't the friendliest it could have been I agree, but I get really annoyed when people imply that those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, which from a Christian perspective is very clear, are evil.

I have no opinion on whether they are “evil”, but they certainly are causing actual harm to actual people. Religion is not a license to avoid accountability of this fact.

Re: Firefox 94

#247

Post by space_fountain »

mongol wrote: post #230
spaghettiandm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>-"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.

I sort of thought we had had this discussion already. Gay people don’t have heterosexual relationships in the same way a straight person does, yes they are free to marry, but not in the way they’d actually want to. Also the very best you can get to about marriage as a traditional even religious institution is maybe the government shouldn’t be running it. Thinking otherwise isn’t just an opinion a bit out of the mainstream anymore at least among the class that works for tech companies. Can you imagine if he’d donated to a cause that was against inter racial marriages?

Re: Firefox 94

#248

Post by EastOfTruth »

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...

Why do you need to create a collection? I was happy when all extensions was the only collection. And this has been in Nightly for about a year.. when is it coming to stable? (those questions aren't really questions, it just looks like Mozilla is trying to make extensions go away)

Re: Firefox 94

#249

Post by TheArcane »

> And on Linux, we’ve improved WebGL performance and reduced power consumption for many users.

All right!

> Users of the proprietary Nvidia driver will need to wait a little bit longer as the currently released drivers lack an important extension. [1]

Oh no :(

[1]: https://mozillagfx.wordpress.com/2021/10/30/switching-the-li...

Re: Firefox 94

#250

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

542458 wrote: post #98
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.

Agreed! A browser engine is a horrifically complicated piece of tech, and unfortunately nobody wants to pay a cent for their browser software. The fact that we have an “independent” browser at all is amazing! Sure, everybody has their pet peeves, but overall I think the Firefox project is great. I switched off chrome a few years back, and have been a happy user ever since.

I can proudly announce that I did pay cold hard cash for my browser software! $49.90 for a Netscape Navigator box back in 1996 :)
Post reply on HN