491–500 of 619 posts
I love firefox.
I use Waterfox personally, but it's a minor difference. Some lesser known extensions: LocalCDN Tab Session Manager Feedbro Enhancer for YouTube Request Control Trace There is a lot of configuration you can do with a user.js file as well. I took a lot of options from the tor browser config since I value privacy.
Is the fact that it’s owned by an analytics/ad company a concern for you? https://avoidthehack.com/review-waterfox-browser#thebad
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not be shocked if 13” was, in fact, the modal display size. A lot of people work off of laptops or even tablets.
Why is not possible to cater to the needs of more than one group of users? Windows 95 had the ability to change the size of its icons. Clearly it can be done.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/7wnf7y/is_there_an...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand correctly, these only compartmentalise cookies and browsing history, whereas full profiles (via the -ProfileManager switch in Firefox) compartmentalise the whole browser config (add-ons, permissions, etc.) as well, which I think is much more useful.
Depends on usage. I use distinct profiles for testing, but during the day, I open versions of the site for personal and work for example. Or at work for different clients. It depends on workflow IMO. There are uses for both.
I've been using firefox for years... Firefox is cool. Slack huddle in my Firefox never works, I don't know why. But that's cool. If someone in the team needs a "huddle" I can give a reason and ask them to describe their problem instead. That works 99% and saves me a lot of time. I love firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets be clear here. They were only tested on some developer's fast machine on Chrome. All the users are going to be using it on some bag of shit $300 laptop running crapware infested Edge so they will be suffering like your Firefox users are. The problem is the left hand side of the chain. Stop pulling in thousand layer garbage abstractions and making the user pay the penalty for it.
No, Firefox just flat out has some worse JavaScript performance and bugs/incompatibility with other browsers. I’ve been/am currently burned by Firefox’s pretty poor IndexedDB support and performance. IDBObjectStore.getAll() fails with a cryptic exception if you store too much in IndexedDB (iirc 256mb is the limit), whereas Chrome and Safari have no problem with it. It also has terrible performance - about 4x slower t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually you find that the reason these barriers exist is because people were abusing the previous system. There are (sadly) plenty of people out there who will install a browser extension & tweak an about:config setting if you set up the right incentives to get them to look past the warnings. The price of protecting these people from those that would take advantage of them is developers having to download a different…
When you dig deeper, you will indeed find that the public reason for these kind of restrictions is "to keep the user safe". They claim to be worried about malware installing their own extensions, so they lock everything down. As if that same malware wouldn't just patch the firefox binary to allow loading unsigned extensions. It's ridiculous and obviously meant as a first step towards a walled garden. It's very unfort…
Check out Firefox for Android. It has a Walled Garden of extensions. There is a list of about 20 whitelisted extensions. All others are (falsely) claimed to be "incompatible".
Dealing with multiple AWS accounts would be awful without them.