Asking a related question: is there anyway to sync history between browsers, fully self-hosted?
Firefox Sync does sync history. If you mean cross-browser, I don’t think there is a way.
Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
61–70 of 91 posts
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#62Would be nice if librewolf and WaterFox changed their flow to make it clear that Mozilla's Sync Server is being used, and make it opt in with something like: To sync please select one of the options below: [x] Custom Sync Server: ___________ [ ] Mozilla Sync
Sync is nothing but an awfully overengineered blob storage (I have implemented an alternative Accounts+Sync server when 1.5 came out, https://gitlab.com/drdaeman/firesync/ - long abandoned and the code is awful proof-of-concept inly, but the point here is to prove that I have a slightly educated opinion on the matter). IMHO, It would be best (for technical users) if Firefox forks would rather replace Sync with someth…
With only object storage, handling sync conflicts [0] becomes more complicated. I can understand why they don’t do that.
[0] https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/storage/ap...
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sync is nothing but an awfully overengineered blob storage (I have implemented an alternative Accounts+Sync server when 1.5 came out, https://gitlab.com/drdaeman/firesync/ - long abandoned and the code is awful proof-of-concept inly, but the point here is to prove that I have a slightly educated opinion on the matter). IMHO, It would be best (for technical users) if Firefox forks would rather replace Sync with someth…
Is there a specification somewhere for the sync server that you followed, or did you figure out the endpoints/logic by looking at mozilla's sync server? I was thinking about taking a crack at this as well, but I can't find a spec, and I want to leave looking at the python/rust sync server source code as a last resort.
The API docs are linked here: https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs?tab=readm...
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
To best of my awareness, the login page (including JS code) is still served over the Internet, and encryption keys are derived solely from the password. That’s not a good design for something as sensitive as one’s full browser data.
send a pr. but don't know how adding a key owned by moz would make this more trustworthy
It used to be that you could have separate login and encryption passwords. It used to be that you could self-host it as easily as pointing to a separate WebDAV server (trivial to spin up if you have _any_ web server at all).
Not anymore.
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#65Closed article after "docker". Oh god... It's still seems faster to hand-merge bookmarks from all of my browsers and devices together.
Why is this downvoted?
Why does this bookmark syncing server need to be anything other than a dumb file storage? It used to be a simple WebDAV server -- Mozilla unilaterally changed it to this monstrosity of a service with little real gain for the user to be seen.
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#66I'll jump to the wolfside but I'm going to absolutely miss "send tab to device", where I'm often driving this from mobile firefox, sending to one of a few other devices for Next time I'm sitting at a desk
There are alternative techniques but maybe none with so few clicks, where the outcome is something literally in your face. A new tab opening on a computer elsewhere. It's that "I'm almost forced to see this" that I like
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#67Closed article after "docker". Oh god... It's still seems faster to hand-merge bookmarks from all of my browsers and devices together.
Why is this downvoted? Why does this bookmark syncing server need to be anything other than a dumb file storage? It used to be a simple WebDAV server -- Mozilla unilaterally changed it to this monstrosity of a service with little real gain for the user to be seen.
It's not about bookmarks only. Also history. A syncserver is the only way to access firefox mobile history, as its api (browser.history) is severely restricted or unavailable.
So short of rooting your device to directly access places.sqlite, there's no alternative.
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's just me but having dedicated employee's to manage security is a prerequisite for me; atleast I could point my finger at someone if things happen.
I personally don't see the value in that. I'd rather spend time fixing something than getting people to fix it for me, and having someone just to point fingers at them after a failure feels cowardly. But maybe I'm just not a managerial type.
That's a time vs. outsourcing trade-off. When everything is working, it's invisible and great, but if something breaks, and if you're in the middle of the something, you either have to postpone it, or stop everything and fix the problem to be able to continue your life unaffected.
I'm into self-hosting, and host some of my services myself, but get some services too, because I have limited time and don't want to stop drop and roll when something breaks.
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this downvoted? Why does this bookmark syncing server need to be anything other than a dumb file storage? It used to be a simple WebDAV server -- Mozilla unilaterally changed it to this monstrosity of a service with little real gain for the user to be seen.
It's not about bookmarks only. Also history. A syncserver is the only way to access firefox mobile history, as its api (browser.history) is severely restricted or unavailable. So short of rooting your device to directly access places.sqlite, there's no alternative.
> A syncserver is the only way to access firefox mobile history, as its api (browser.history) is severely restricted or unavailable. So short of rooting your device to directly access places.sqlite, there's no alternative.
What I'm pointing is that in previous versions, Firefox ITSELF used to allow setting an arbitrary WebDAV server as "sync server", and STILL sync history, tabs, whatever the heck you can think of. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/02/mozil... . It is much later that the option to use a plain WebDAV server disappeared from Firefox Sync, and also later that the option to set your own E2EE key also disappeared (and forced to use the login pw instead, making it easier for Mozilla to capture). The "restriction" you are pointing out is entirely Mozilla-made. All in the name of user convenience of course.
Again, why is anything other than a dumb storage server required, considering than previous versions used to be able to do it with just a dumb storage server ?
Re: Self-Hosting a Firefox Sync Server
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sync is nothing but an awfully overengineered blob storage (I have implemented an alternative Accounts+Sync server when 1.5 came out, https://gitlab.com/drdaeman/firesync/ - long abandoned and the code is awful proof-of-concept inly, but the point here is to prove that I have a slightly educated opinion on the matter). IMHO, It would be best (for technical users) if Firefox forks would rather replace Sync with someth…
With only object storage, handling sync conflicts [0] becomes more complicated. I can understand why they don’t do that. [0] https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/storage/ap...
Yet stuff like CalDAV which is used by millions transparently handles syncing on top of WebDAV (arguably not just dumb storage , but not much better than it). Not only that, but Firefox Sync _itself_ used to be WebDAV.