Live data from Hacker News

Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

blog.mozilla.org

201–210 of 212 posts

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#201
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a problem with the new UI, rather than the old. Will the old show profiles created in the new UI?

no

So when they remove the old UI, all my profiles will be gone?

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#203
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried `firefox --no-remote --profile `? In my case, I am able to launch several Firefox instances with distinct profiles.

I do `open -n "/Applications/Firefox.app" --args -p myprofilename` and that does the trick on mac

How does that integrate with the "Dock" or menu bar at the bottom? (new to Mac)

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond its UI having basically been frozen since Netscape Navigator 4-ish modulo XUL shenanigans? The new Profile Manager (that doesn't yet entirely replace the old one, both exist side-by-side for the moment) uses icons and colors to better differentiate profiles at a glance. Additionally links to the new Profile Manager are now in the Account menu and feel a bit more like an "account chooser" (comparable to Chrome'…

> that doesn't yet entirely replace the old one That's what I fear happening, and I will not like it. > comparable to Chrome's experience If I wanted to have "Chrome's experience" I would have used Chrome. Profiles is one way Firefox has been vastly better. Selecting the last used Profile is one press on Enter on startup and selecting a different one is a matter of pressing up/down a few times and pressing Enter or t…

> Why is everyone comparing it to the "hidden debug site" instead of the old profiles UI? Yeah no shit, about:profiles is not discoverable to the average user, much like all the other about: pages, but why would anyone not debugging the browser use it over the normal profiles UI?

"about:profiles" wasn't a debug view, it was the "normal" profiles UI; it was the only way to get to the ProfileManager without closing Firefox and reopening it with a CLI flag. For most of its life in Firefox it never had a menu item or toolbar button.

> I vastly prefer native(?-like) UI, way more over yet another Metro-UI clone with sluggish behaviour and no keyboard bindings.

Firefox has never used native controls. They were "XUL" controls for a long while, but that had several major revisions. (Netscape had some XUL predecessors, probably some port or fork of a Unix toolkit like Qt or Tk?) But the trick to XUL was it was always the same renderer as HTML for the most part. Then in the somewhat controversial at the time decision to kill off XUL Firefox moved to just HTML everywhere.

The new Profile Manager seemed to have keyboard bindings and didn't feel sluggish to me. The one loan complaint with it is that it doesn't have a way yet to surface profiles made before using the new Manager, but I assume that will come with time and expect that's one of the things to fix before the new one replaces the old one.

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key element here is switching windows across profiles. Safari almost gets this right but fails in the UI imho. Edge has "workspaces" that could almost work but they don't provide isolation.

Zen [0] can bridge that gap. I have it set up so that each workspace in practice maps to a specific container. [0] https://zen-browser.app/

Yes, Zen is extremely good at that. Alas, as it is using Firefox Sync it doesn't sync your sidebar states (yet).

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that doesn't yet entirely replace the old one That's what I fear happening, and I will not like it. > comparable to Chrome's experience If I wanted to have "Chrome's experience" I would have used Chrome. Profiles is one way Firefox has been vastly better. Selecting the last used Profile is one press on Enter on startup and selecting a different one is a matter of pressing up/down a few times and pressing Enter or t…

> Why is everyone comparing it to the "hidden debug site" instead of the old profiles UI? Yeah no shit, about:profiles is not discoverable to the average user, much like all the other about: pages, but why would anyone not debugging the browser use it over the normal profiles UI? "about:profiles" wasn't a debug view, it was the "normal" profiles UI; it was the only way to get to the ProfileManager without closing Fir…

> "about:profiles" wasn't a debug view, it was the "normal" profiles UI; it was the only way to get to the ProfileManager without closing Firefox and reopening it with a CLI flag. For most of its life in Firefox it never had a menu item or toolbar button.

I did not knew that. I have used the ProfileManager for years and have not know of "about:profiles". Where is even the button on that page to launch the ProfileManager? I only see options to launch a specific profile or Restart with or without Add-Ons. This doesn't really look like the official page to handle Profiles and more like an afterthought.

Also about:profiles currently tells me this, because I started another profile:

> About Profiles

> Another copy of Firefox has made changes to profiles. You must restart Firefox before making more changes. This page helps you to manage your profiles. Each profile is a separate world which contains separate history, bookmarks, settings and add-ons.

What kind of useless behaviour is that? I can't open another profile as soon as another profile was opened? Honestly the claim, that this is supposed to be the primary interface to Profiles doesn't sound believable. This seems to be more something like a diagnostic tool/power user tool to access half-way internals in the same spirit as about:processes or other about: pages.

Also opening the Profiles Manager through some other Firefox instance seems a bit pointless to me, because you normally use Profiles to have process isolation and prevent one frozen Firefox instance from blocking another to start.

> it was the only way to get to the ProfileManager without closing Firefox

You can open the Profiles Manager without closing Firefox?

> For most of its life in Firefox it never had a menu item or toolbar button.

That seems to be an easy change that doesn't need redesigning the Profile mechanism.

> Firefox has never used native controls.

I suspected that, that's why I added a question mark and "-like". I ment that it feels, behaves and conforms like a native tool and is really usable and integrated.

Also are you sure about that? Because when I change my GTK+/GNOME theme, it also instantly changes the layout, icons, colors, etc. in the Profile Manager as well as in the other Firefox Chrome at runtime. Normally only GTK+ programs do that, not even KDE programs do it and certainly not some customly rolled UI toolkit. For example programs like Google Chrome(ium) give a shit about the OS theme. So if Firefox really uses some self-made UI toolkit, than they did a REALLY good job, because it looks and behaves exactly like all the other GTK+ programs. But I always thought that Firefox uses a GTK+ fork.

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#207
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're doing profiles and containers wrong. There are numerous other free software that demonstrate better examples. Profiles are about separating Settings and user history, not for security isolation. If you want to do that use the OS? > Today we have full-window pages with multiple pages supported by tabs. But those who use browsers for anything serious, besides watching cat videos or doom scrolling on social medi…

> Profiles are about separating Settings and user history, not for security isolation. Where does it say that? Using profiles is currently like using different browsers altogether. How does that preclude security isolation? All that aside, how did you reach the conclusion if you read what I wrote? I was talking about a single unified mechanism to consolidate the various types of isolations, security or not, in an eas…

> If you need something to be upset about browsers, there are plenty of egregious changes being pushed down the throats of the users. In contrast, I wasn't suggesting anything that the user has to accept without questions.

I will never object to new isolated features that are opt-in, don't break other features, don't clutter up the UI and worsen the performance. I'm also willing to take compromises for new features. Sadly this is not the experience I get from modern software development and especially anything Web-adjacent like browsers.

I only pointed out how I don't think these should be priorities or think they are already solved.

> Using profiles is currently like using different browsers altogether.

Using profiles is like using a different configuration and different runtime state with the same browser. This doesn't sound too far of from isolation, but I think security that is rolled in user programs and not backed by the OS is fundamentally futile. It is nice to have another option, but I wouldn't count on if for real security. And it seams to be a bit unnecessary, when the OS already provides process and user isolation, that are seldom able to be bypassed.

> If you haven't noticed, ..... browsers become complicated OS ...

Yes, and I don't like that, but this is orthogonal here.

> why insist on gatekeeping it to the OS window manager?

To me that is the opposite of gatekeeping, because now this is available and consistent to every program and not just specific to a single one.

Per program window handling used to be common, but has been largely abandoned, because most people don't work that way. MS Windows has had (and still has) MDI. This is a nice concept in my opinion, but it largely went away for reasons. Some setup programs still ask you if you want to install the program in MDI or SDI mode, but to my knowledge no new program does it and users seldomly use it. MacOS also has remnants of this with windows that are bounded by the borders of the parent window.

This approach has a fundamental flaw though. So you do a lot amount of work and now you can display multiple websites side-by-side in a single OS window, but as soon as you want to do the same with the text editor, the Office application, the Video player or any other program, you are lost and need to use the OS window manager. Now you have red-flavored and green-flavored windows, that are incompatible and not interoperable and this is kind-of stupid.

Instead we went the other way, and in my opinion for a good reason. So for example on MS Windows tabs are treated the same as windows, they get listed in the window switcher and get screenshots just like real OS windows. I think this is a better approach, because now all the windows can be modified and moved the same and also have vastly more features than isolated applications could ever provide. Think of how to implement "Always on top" in the browser.

> Where have you ever seen that done satisfactorily?

Yes, everyday on my computer? I either click on the tab and do "Move Tab" > "to New Window", or just drag the tab away from its position and then press Windows - Left/Right Up/Down, wherever I want the tab to be.

> Forget the numerous bars and panels all over the place that take up so much space.

The chrome isn't that much and can even be reduced to a tiny line, when you turn it into a popup. Granted, this could be a button, but that's not a large change and the functionality is already available with an oneliner. In fact I recently added exactly this feature.

> When have you ever been able to share information seamlessly like in a single window?

Whenever I want it?

> It's so frustrating that it's a joke as a solution.

Not to me. Can share what frustrates you?

> On which platform? How many WMs/DEs you know offer that facility?

Well you already listed MacOS, and I was able to do it in the past on GNOME/Mate, but just tried it and it still exists, but is broken, so I am sad. I was under the impression, that this used a portable API, because it did work across a lot, of UI toolkits.

> But the window layout shouldn't stop there. Currently, the menu bars, tab bar/sidebar, toolbars, address bar etc consume too much space. Imagine if it was the same case for desktops? Desktops take only a tiny fraction of the screen space in the form of the status bar or the dock. Even that is optional in many cases and can be hidden when not in use. The best way to layout the pages on a window IMHO, is how the tiling window managers do it. Browsers like Firefox already treat the UI like HTML+CSS. But it's on a different plane from the page UI - so much so that you need to start the debugger console in a different mode to control it. But if the tabs, status bars and menu bars used the same layout as regular pages (but with special UI control privileges), you'll get numerous options to design it the way you prefer and hide them easily.

What you describe sounds like what KDE supports out of the box. You will be pleased to hear, that the corporate browser vendors Google and Apple have forked the KDE browser, so you can expect that browsers to be highly customizable. /s

> there are plenty of egregious changes being pushed down the throats of the users.

I just fear that this all starts as a good intention, but becomes yet another thing pushed down the throats of users. The browser chrome is one of the last remaining things, that work and look exactly like the native UI, and I don't want to loose that last bit. Also have you heard of the line of death? I don't think we want to loose that. See https://textslashplain.com/2017/01/14/the-line-of-death/

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#208

I've used profiles for a long time, but they have some annoyances. One thing I really want is a comprehensive system for transferring/syncing only certain data between profiles. Profiles contain some data that is specific to, well, a particular browsing profile (like open tabs), but also data that is really more specific to me as a person (like font preferences). And then each extension can have its own settings or d…

Have you tried user.js? You store browser preferences in it and firefox copies said preferences to prefs.js on startup (overwriting on conflict).

But there's no UI for that, nor is there a way to use it for any other profile data (that I know of).

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's fair (and glad profiles have finally arrived in FF for that reason); personally, i don't use password managers linked to any specific browser but i can understand your use case.

> and glad profiles have finally arrived in FF for that reason Profiles have been there for years, been using them since at least 2010.

sort of. it was a nuts and bolt implementation. by their own admission it was reintroduced to make it more friendly. from a comment I saw made elsewhere:

> yes about:profiles has existed for a long time. We have heard feedback from many of our users to make it user friendly and accessible. We are introducing many new additional functionalities in this new profile management experience (avatars, colors/themes, shortcuts, desktop icons, default links/apps per profile, copy profile, move tabs between profiles). Stayed tuned for these updates.

so yes, you are right. it did exist.

Re: Firefox profiles: Private, focused spaces for all the ways you browse

#210

for the most part I've been using Firefox containers and loving that life of getting the same benefits without having to create separate profiles. but it's nice to see this finally get into Firefox because there are still a lot of folks who also want to maintain things like browser bookmarks, passwords etc in a separate profile. that's the only conceivable useful difference over Containers (which IMHO is slightly bet…

Containers are nice, but they are, as you said, not as powerful as the new profiles system (which is, incidentally, almost as easy to use as containers now that we can switch between them right in the UI).

At this time there are essentially three levels of indirection: "legacy" profiles -> new profiles -> containers, that is we can have multiple legacy profiles with each having multiple new profiles, each with an independent group of containers in them.

To choose a legacy profile, use the -P CLI option (with or without a profile name). Once firefox starts, you can switch between the new profiles stored inside the current legacy one using the new UI.

Post reply on HN