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

Firefox 95 Released

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 160 posts

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#141

Post by technobabbler »

bovermyer wrote: post #139
technobabbler wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People flocked from Netscape to IE because it was better. People flocked from IE to Phoenix/early Firefox because it was better. People flocked from Firefox to Chrome because it was better. People aren't flocking from Chrome back to Firefox because Firefox has gotten worse while Chrome has gotten better. Why would I use something that most of the web doesn't support, is full of crapvertising, doesn't work seamlessly…

You call Firefox malware, but use Google services?

Google services are deeply invasive, but also tremendously useful. It's a tradeoff.

Firefox ads are just pure spam.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#142

Post by ksec »

kibwen wrote: post #80
aeturnum wrote: post #27

> reduced the power usage of software decoded video on macOS Oh nice - tho Firefox is lower-power than Chrome for me it was noticeably bad on some video sites.

I didn't see it in any release notes, but AV1 decoding on Windows has also greatly improved in power consumption this year. My laptop used to nearly overheat when watching HD videos (Youtube started serving AV1 for HD within the past year), but nowadays it doesn't seem to cause any extra stress.

> AV1 decoding on Windows

most likely due to dav1d than anything else.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#143

Post by ksec »

boogies wrote: post #120
deadbunny wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only on Apple hardware though.

No, in fact Mozilla’s hostility to embeddability makes the world’s largest megacorp look positively selfless as a contributor to the FLOSS community: the WebKit devs actually give 2¢ about it and webkit2gtk, and it enables a whole range of cross platform (GNU/* and *BSD) browsers from GNOME Web to suckless surf to luakit.

> hostility

I wouldn't say it was really hostility. But Gecko just wasn't designed to be embeddable in the first place. And they have millions of things to catch up at the time they ultimately decided they could only focus on a few things like Quantum and other things in Project Snappy. May be in the future.

Compared to Webkit the whole engine was designed as an embeddable engine from Day one.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#144

Post by ksec »

haha_lul wrote: post #76
bovermyer wrote: post #6

I can't remember why I moved from Firefox to Brave. I'm curious if I should move back again. Can anyone sell me on/off this idea?

I find the way Firefox handles displaying lots of tabs in the top bar really intuitive - instead of trying to cram them all within the width of your display they overflow, allowing you to scroll through them while still being able to see favicons and some title text. Can’t remember if Brave uses the same approach as Chrome for this Also if you’re hardcore about managing your tabs I hear people swear by tree-style tab…

Chrome has seen have an option for fixed width Tabs along with Tab overflow.

But yes in terms of Super lots of tabs Firefox still wins in terms of resource usage and UX.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#145

Post by ksec »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #117
acdha wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They removed one of the ways you could get to it: from the right-click context menu. You can still use the keyboard shortcut or add it to the toolbar. (Yes, it was disappointing to see it removed for no good reason)

Yeah and then a few updates later their holy telemetry tells them nobody uses it anymore (makes sense as it's much harder to find) and it gets cut. It goes like this a lot. They listen too much to telemetry. Especially because a significant part of their userbase will turn it off.

Basically infected by Google's A/B testing methodology. It really shouldn't be how design works. ( Part of the reason why Google still dont understand Design )

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#146

Post by boogies »

khnov wrote: post #99
ct0 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitwarden's firefox plugin has been flawless for me.

Bitwarden on firefox buggy as hell for me, it does not autofill (except using shortcuts) and does not work on private nav ...

> does not work on private nav

Did you enable it? Firefox requires you to opt-in to any extensions running in private browsing (there’s a checkbox in the pop up that appears when you install them, and also on the add on preferences page).

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#147

Post by dangus »

technobabbler wrote: post #141
bovermyer wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call Firefox malware, but use Google services?

Google services are deeply invasive, but also tremendously useful. It's a tradeoff. Firefox ads are just pure spam.

All Firefox ads can be turned off. You can very quickly remove Pocket from new tab pages.

Meanwhile, Firefox is providing useful features like tab containers and Facebook container that are not replicable in Chrome even with extensions.

When you use Chrome you're using a browser made by an advertisement COMPANY. Every time you Google search you are looking at Google ads, and Chrome itself integrates with Google search and other services so that users feel like they are missing out if they decide to choose an alternative.

The entire purpose of Chrome is to lock you into Google services, Android, and make it just that much more convenient to use Google products for everything you do.

But somehow, the independent alternative run by an actual non-profit is worse because they dared to try and monetize their product, in a unintrusive and fully optional way. No, it'd be better if we all subscribe to Google's information dragnet, because that's "free" and has "no ads."

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#148

Post by cxr »

ksec wrote: post #143
boogies wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in fact Mozilla’s hostility to embeddability makes the world’s largest megacorp look positively selfless as a contributor to the FLOSS community: the WebKit devs actually give 2¢ about it and webkit2gtk, and it enables a whole range of cross platform (GNU/* and *BSD) browsers from GNOME Web to suckless surf to luakit.

> hostility I wouldn't say it was really hostility. But Gecko just wasn't designed to be embeddable in the first place. And they have millions of things to catch up at the time they ultimately decided they could only focus on a few things like Quantum and other things in Project Snappy. May be in the future. Compared to Webkit the whole engine was designed as an embeddable engine from Day one.

> Gecko just wasn't designed to be embeddable in the first place.

This is untrue in the starkest sense. Please don't make stuff up and then present it as fact.

Embeddability was a major goal for Gecko at the outset. It's the reason for many of the architectural decisions that exist today (past the point where that goal has been abandoned).

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#149

Post by technobabbler »

dangus wrote: post #147
technobabbler wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google services are deeply invasive, but also tremendously useful. It's a tradeoff. Firefox ads are just pure spam.

All Firefox ads can be turned off. You can very quickly remove Pocket from new tab pages. Meanwhile, Firefox is providing useful features like tab containers and Facebook container that are not replicable in Chrome even with extensions. When you use Chrome you're using a browser made by an advertisement COMPANY . Every time you Google search you are looking at Google ads, and Chrome itself integrates with Google sear…

You know, kudos to Mozilla for trying so hard... but Google is just better at it. shrug. By all means, they can keep fighting that losing battle if they want, but the world has already moved on and forgotten them. Nobody cares anymore except a tiny niche on here and what's left on slashdot.

Maybe the ideology of it is really important to you. To me it's just a browser, and not worth fiddling with. Chrome does one thing really well, and that's getting out of my way. Firefox constantly interrupts, whatever the reason. I don't really care if they're struggling, sorry. Maybe that's an indication of their plummeting value to society. It's just not a useful product for most of the world anymore. If they can't afford to keep the lights on, maybe they could go the Brave or Opera route and make it a Chromium reskin without the Googly bits, and deprecate Gecko altogether. Maybe Firefox has some value as a nonprofit browser, but Gecko, as far as I can tell, does not -- to me and to most of the world.

Besides, it's not like the internet is any more open with Firefox... 90% of the content is just served from like 5 huge tech companies anyway. Third party tracking is less significant when all the first parties track everything directly and they host most of the content to begin with. And at the end of the day, the internet is just a time-waster full of crap, not some beautiful ideological hill for humanity to die on. We already lost that battle in the 2000s, and capitalism won.

As for Google, I already don't see any Google ads anywhere. The only effect I notice from their dragnet is that my Google News feed is annoyingly based on my browsing habits, which is unfortunate indeed. Other than that, Chrome is wonderfully unnoticeable... YMMV may vary, of course. And if they deploy those changes to the extension model and break uBlock, sure, I'll consider another browser. Probably Safari or Brave. Still not worth the hassle of Firefox.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#150

Post by basch »

Kerbonut wrote: post #132
basch wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but has an option to then show its own ads instead, which is not. To be clear, the software pops up OS level ad notifications, whether you visit sites with ads to block or not. The two features are independent of each other. It may still be a gray area, but its unfair to paint it as what its not.

Doesn’t the user have to specifically turn that option on?

I was replying to

>but has an option to then show its own ads instead, which is not.

While conceptually sure they offer ad replacement, technically they sort of dont. Ads support their product, and their product blocks ads. You can turn off the support ads, you can turn off ad blocking. They are two independent unrelated features.

Post reply on HN