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

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#131

Post by mananaysiempre »

cxr wrote: post #130
mananaysiempre wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebKit hardly qualifies as independent from an ecosystem health standpoint, though... GP was probably referring more to efforts like WebSurf.

> efforts like WebSurf I guess this is a reference to the browser that's actually called NetSurf? Or maybe not? It's not clear, either, what the statement that "WebKit hardly qualifies as independent from an ecosystem health standpoint, though" means. Overall, this comment is very confusing.

> this is a reference to the browser that's actually called NetSurf

Yes, sorry, I meant http://www.netsurf-browser.org/. (I knew I should look up and put in the link, but it was late... Turns out I even misremembered the name.)

> what the statement that "WebKit hardly qualifies as independent from an ecosystem health standpoint, though" means.

That the Blink layout engine is a fork of the WebKit codebase, so if the issue is keeping the standard healthy by ensuring multiple people can implement it independently, having WebKit and Blink be the only implementations is less than ideal, even if not a complete failure.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#132

Post by Kerbonut »

basch wrote: post #77
LeoPanthera wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it hides website ads, which is fine, but has an option to then show its own ads instead, which is not. It has a history of injecting its own affiliate codes into your URLs. It has a history of accepting "donations" for people who cannot claim them, and pretending to represent those people. Many of their more egregious issues have been "fixed", but the pattern is clear. Their CEO provided institutional support to…

>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?

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#133

Post by cxr »

stavros wrote: post #9
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 use Firefox as my main browser, and have done so for years now. I really like it, I've had no problems with it, and I like the fact that it's the only major non-Webkit browser.

"The only major non-WebKit browser", if it exists, is a title that would have to go to Chrome, and it would require you to consider Firefox a "minor non-WebKit browser". At <5% (on par with Opera circa 2012), that wouldn't necessarily be an inaccurate way to describe it.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#134

Post by cxr »

input_sh wrote: post #16
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?

It's simple, do you want to contribute to the Webkit dominance or would you like to support the last remaining engine not in the hands of Google (or Apple if you happen to use their hardware)? For me the answer will be Firefox as long as it's a thing and I have no intention of switching to any Chromium derivatives.

> do you want to contribute to the Webkit dominance

There is no WebKit dominance. This is not 2012. WebKit, used in Safari et al, accounts for (Every time you conflate WebKit and Blink, you harm the cause you're ostensibly pledging yourself to.)

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#135

Post by syockit »

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 can't remember why I moved from Firefox to Brave.

You moved from Firefox to Brave because of the cosmetic change that made tabs look like buttons, detached from the content it's associated with. There were many other straws (random freezing, memory bloat etc.) but that was the last straw that broke the camel's back. You tried Brave, and found that it offers pretty much anything you'd expect from a web browser.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#136

Post by JeremyNT »

d3nj4l wrote: post #95

> We’ve added a User Agent override for Slack.com, which allows Firefox users to use more Call features and have access to Huddles. YES E: Shame on Slack. Three years and counting they haven't fixed this.

Good lord, what's old is new again.

Maybe FF should just always use a Chrome-like UA and be done with it.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#137

Post by [deleted] »

nyuszika7h wrote: post #128
GekkePrutser wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is exactly the issue with telemetry, it's a vicious cycle. Most power users will turn it off because it's "spyware", so the only telemetry they get is from average users who don't even know the feature exists, which leads to them removing useful features, so in its current state it's practically useless for actual measurements and only ends up hurting things. That's why I don't like when there's a blind hate mob…

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#138

Post by GekkePrutser »

nyuszika7h wrote: post #128
GekkePrutser wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is exactly the issue with telemetry, it's a vicious cycle. Most power users will turn it off because it's "spyware", so the only telemetry they get is from average users who don't even know the feature exists, which leads to them removing useful features, so in its current state it's practically useless for actual measurements and only ends up hurting things. That's why I don't like when there's a blind hate mob…

Well this is the same argument Microsoft make. "It's useful for us (and you) so it must be turned on". But I don't want my computer looking over my shoulder, anonymised or not. Other FOSS projects have been nice and asking about it (like Debian since forever with their popularity contest). The feeling of privacy is important too, it's not just about whether you can have any negative effects in life. And our privacy has been infringed so much that there is a big countermovement now. It's the industry's own fault. I used to be OK with it but because so many supposedly-innocent telemetry and tracking turned out to be malicious I no longer believe in a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' telemetry.

That mindset also solves the problem of having to read every privacy policy before agreeing to stuff and be on the lookout for sneaky changes. Even though I think Mozilla is trustworthy as such, the concept of telemetry is just dead in the water in the pro-privacy community. Which is of couse a major percentage of Mozilla's userbase.

A poll in-browser would be a good idea IMO. Just put it in the menu and lots of users will answer it.

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#139

Post by bovermyer »

technobabbler wrote: post #96
dangus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason it "dies" is because people aren't using it. By using it, you help it to not "die." By using Firefox you show web developers that they need to support you as a user, or risk losing your business. That in turn makes Mozilla influential.

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?

Re: Firefox 95 Released

#140

Post by bovermyer »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #115
wenc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved from Chrome to Firefox a year ago, because: 1) Multi-account containers - open each tab in an isolated container with its own session cookies etc. Use case? Login to multiple Google/Azure/AWS/etc accounts at the same time on different tabs. This is a game-changer if you have to login to multiple cloud accounts because you work for a multinational and each subsidiary you support is on a different tenant. 2) Fi…

Yeah https://business.apple.com is an example of a site that explicitly blocks Firefox. If it was just some indie web dev with no time to spare i could understand...

That's shocking. Why would it do this?
Post reply on HN