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

261–270 of 340 posts

Re: Firefox 94

#261

Post by joedamore »

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.

It's completely fair that people who do not subscribe to Christianity would look negatively upon those who do and who are trying to force their belief systems on everybody else.

And it's arbitrary, anyway. How many passages from the Bible are nonchalantly dismissed by contemporary Christians because they're barbaric or otherwise incompatible with modern society and Christianity? If you have to pick and choose your beliefs anyway, why should any respect be owed to those who choose to believe that gays have no right to marry?

Re: Firefox 94

#262

Post by jjulius »

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.

> Everyone had equal rights to marry also before...

Well that's just not true.

Re: Firefox 94

#263

Post by dang »

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.

"Don't be snarky."

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Firefox 94

#264

Post by oorza »

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,…

The fact that problematic beliefs are widely held does not forgive past sins, especially when they were known as sins at the time, and ESPECIALLY when you talk about leadership.

Re: Firefox 94

#265

Post by Ajedi32 »

Minor49er wrote: post #170
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…

There are many reasons why someone would not want this behavior, including: - Browser updates often carry more than just security fixes, which may or may not be wanted by the user - Background updates make it less likely for the user to know why their software is being updated - The user may have a legitimate reason for sticking with an older version of a piece of software - Most browsers already show the user when a…

Unfortunately, the realities of modern software development make it very difficult to separate feature patches from security patches. Maintaining an ever-increasing number of older versions of the same software indefinitely just isn't feasible.

"Bother the user with a dialog that lets them shoot themselves in the foot every time there's an update." isn't a good solution to that problem. Firefox's Extended Support Release[1] is a better one, but even with that users will need to accept a feature update eventually.

There may be legitimate situations where it does make sense to turn off automatic updates (that's why the option is there), but they're very niche and require a lot of expertise to pull off without compromising security. Well designed software should intentionally make it hard to disable critical security features without knowing what you're doing.

I also don't think informing users about the contents of an update usually meets the bar where it is "absolutely necessary" to interrupt them just for that. Unless your update is about to break something important (which you should certainly avoid if at all possible) patch notes shouldn't be required reading.

[1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/enterprise/

Re: Firefox 94

#266

Post by kixiQu »

BMorearty wrote: post #96

I recently switched from Chrome back to Firefox after the news about Google forcing people to stay logged-in to Chrome for tracking purposes. I’ve switched in the past but always ended up switching back for one reason or another. This time I’ve actually been very happy with it and don’t think I’ll switch back soon. Better in Firefox: * Ctrl+Tab cycles through tabs in recently-used order. Just like Cmd+Tab. This featu…

I live in hope FF will catch up with Chrome on printing functionality.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@page

Re: Firefox 94

#267

Post by oorza »

spaghettiandm wrote: post #258
suriyaG wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like the other commentor said, I think it's not about the people themselves as much as it is about the institution of marriage. I think that even the people who hold flags saying God hates fags aren't against civil unions.

> I think that even the people who hold flags saying God hates fags aren't against civil unions.

That's hilariously naive. There's tens of thousands of victims of hate crimes for merely existing as LGTBQIA+ people. You think someone's okay with a civil union while they're lynching a gay man? Get the fuck out of here with this oppressor-forgiving rewriting of history.

I was there, I lived it, this is total bullshit.

Re: Firefox 94

#268

Post by oorza »

BMorearty wrote: post #96

I recently switched from Chrome back to Firefox after the news about Google forcing people to stay logged-in to Chrome for tracking purposes. I’ve switched in the past but always ended up switching back for one reason or another. This time I’ve actually been very happy with it and don’t think I’ll switch back soon. Better in Firefox: * Ctrl+Tab cycles through tabs in recently-used order. Just like Cmd+Tab. This featu…

> * Has tab groups. There doesn’t seem to be a tab group add-on for Firefox that works like Chrome’s tab groups.

Have you tried Tree Style Tabs? Presents your tabs as a collapsible, hierarchical sidebar tree. Even when Chrome was kicking Firefox's ass in every other aspect, I stuck with FF because of TST. It's so much better than any other UI for tab management I've ever seen.

If you go through the steps of disabling the top tab bar and sidebar padding elements in user chrome CSS, it's more space effective than anything else too.

Re: Firefox 94

#269

Post by Narann »

TheArcane wrote: post #249

> 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...

The bug tracker link: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1731172

Re: Firefox 94

#270

Post by spaghettiandm »

joedamore wrote: post #261
spaghettiandm wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's completely fair that people who do not subscribe to Christianity would look negatively upon those who do and who are trying to force their belief systems on everybody else. And it's arbitrary, anyway. How many passages from the Bible are nonchalantly dismissed by contemporary Christians because they're barbaric or otherwise incompatible with modern society and Christianity? If you have to pick and choose your be…

I agree with you that it's a sensitive topic from both sides, but people should focus their negativity on the belief and not the person holding it.

About the Bible, it's actually not as arbitrary as you might believe, because almost all examples of Biblical passages that are dismissed (like circumsision and not wearing some wools or whatnot) are in the Old Testament and are explicitly not required to follow in the new Covenant with Christ.

Marriage is however repeated multiple times in the New Testament as well.

Post reply on HN