141–150 of 840 posts
I want Firefox to not be on the brink. I have had no problems with it on Linux over the last few years since I switched from Chrome. I do not wish to touch Chrome with a ten-foot pole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While not recommended, and I would run firefox developer edition for that, you can disable (make the value false) `security.ssl.enable_ocsp_stapling` in `about:config`. You will be able to view sites with invalid certs/config. But will still prompt you that that something is invalid, and you have the choice to proceed forward. Again, I would not recommend doing that on vanilla Firefox, they have Firefox developer edi…
That's exactly the problem though. I know it's somehow possible, but the fact that I have to search for what's the internal boolean name for whatever feature I want to disable is simply a bad dev UX. If there's a Firefox developer edition (I had no idea), they should enable all "I want to continue anyways" buttons by default. I mean, it's a developer edition!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per the article, this is irrelevant. The case being made is that the figure seen by the government falling under 2%, which it is getting close to, will trigger a chain-reaction of consequences that will dramatically hurt Firefox, and it's not clear if Mozilla, the organization, could weather that. It doesn't particularly matter whether or not the figure is accurate in that context. Maybe that can be fixed easily by h…
USDS aren’t idiots, and if they haven’t realised this yet then maybe this post will focus attention. They want to support every citizen it’s reasonable to support (or at least I did when I was working for GOV.UK) and dropping support from a lack of knowledge shouldn’t be on the agenda.
On top of that, said lack of knowledge is a stated goal of all privacy-focused browsers. GA-blindness is an implementation detail of these policies. Any method the government could use to accurately track that information is effectively a bug in need of fixing from the POV of the browser's developers.
The most practical answer is, as was posted by someone else here, the government spec'ing to a standard instead of a set of browsers, which it really should be doing in the first place. The mere fact that the current setup means that the government accidentally makes and/or breaks winners in that space is justification enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a pretty reasonable question when the salary is so incredibly out of line with what developers make. Is the CEO singlehandedly responsible for productivity equal to that of sixty or so developers?
Not just in absolute terms, what could possibly justify a 600% increase in salary in 7 years?
Salary has nothing to do with productivity at this level of an org.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Staff-level engineers are routinely paid upwards of 1M these days Yeah, at successful high performing trillion dolar tech companies like Nvidia or Apple, not broke*ss underperforming companies like Mozilla. >6M for a CEO doesn't sound unreasonable. It's unreasonable when you take into account Mozilla's lack of performance over the years. Where is their success, other than being kept on life support by being bankrol…
> Where is their success Huh what? I use Firefox and I'm actually very happy with it.
Firefox needs to focus all their effort on making a good web browser first . If the browser is slow, has a clunky interface, or lags behind on features, then people won't use it. Mozilla focus way too much of their attention on privacy and non-browser related projects. Look at how much attention that The Browser Company has gotten for their Arc browser on Mac. Their primary focus is great UI and making an excellent b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s still safari at 34% usage. :badpokerface:
Only because of iOS, I assume. But it looks like Apple might be forced to open things up and allow other browsers to run on iOS. If that happened, I'd expect Safari to drop like a stone.
Now, I just launched Firefox (on Windows), and the fonts look absolutely atrocious compared to Chrome. What's up with that?
Edit: "gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.enhanced_contrast 0" made it a lot better, but not quite as nice a Chrome. Still a whole lot better than the default setting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google cripples adblocker extensions because users won't find their way back to alternative browsers anymore.
They know their average user in 2023 is not the type to be cognizant that they're even using a "web browser" when opening an app like Chrome. I think it's really up to geeks like we to install Firefox on our moms' computers and inform them on why they should try it. That's how I got my mom to try Firefox with ad blocking around 15 years ago; otherwise she either wouldn't have known about it or she might have thought…