Live data from Hacker News

Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

wired.com

141–150 of 340 posts

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#141
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the sites where I've been using U2F works. Some/many sites are sniffing the user agent. And as far as I have googled, there may be a bug in Mozilla's implementation (or maybe a different interpretation of the standard) that they are currently fixing.

It's not a bug in Mozilla's implementation. Google has a JS u2f library that relies on an implementation specific detail of Chrome's U2F impl. Lots of folks use this library.

Hm, that's not good. Is that implementation detail something Mozilla might replicate?

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#142
With all this push for Quantum, I wonder what the extension landscape is like. I’ve heard people complain about FF dropping support for old extension APIs (absolutely no idea if this is true - just murmurs). As a Dev, would now technically be a good time to consider building an extension for Firefox?

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, make your CMS Chrome-only a policy and free yourself of extra testing. And it's not only wired. I've come across a lot of internal sites and intranets that are poorly tested on anything but Chrome. I know, it's not exactly the same thing as the old IE/ActiveX bu…

If Firefox had a larger market share, it would be easy to make the argument for cross-browser compatibility. But when Firefox is not even 12% of Chrome's usage globally http://gs.statcounter.com/ and likely much less for your customers it's difficult to appeal to ideals

Maybe, but those 12% (didn't check the numbers, I take your word for it) are much more sensitive about such discrimination. That's IE all over again...

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#144
post #123
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is actually the only software where I've reviewed the privacy settings when asked and allowed it to send more information than the default setting to the vendor. Because Mozilla.

How about sending the URLs you visit? This could actually happen to you, since you likely live in Germany based on your comments: http://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-whic...

[deleted]

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the Condé Nast CMS have to do with Chromecast (or other bits of Chrome branding strategy)?

Nothing specifically. I was expanding the specific comment on an instance of Chrome-only compatibility into a general comment on other things Google has been doing to expand it's Chrome monopoly. Maybe the topic deserves a top level comment, sorry if it's placement offended your sensibilities.

Oh, please don't let my fragile sensibilities get in the way of your entirely off-topic disquisition. I just wondered if I had missed some nuance.

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re conflating “fake news” and “political fiction.” The first is an attempt to mislead people about events that have happened , the latter is a story about the way events could happen . I’m not interested in arguing about whether objectivity is possible in news, just saying this distinction is important.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond... https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-photo-of-president-trump-dump... an honest question, do your content police block CNN for this one article? if yes, i respect your consistency but i think CNN deserves some forgiveness. if no, why not? what is the threshold? any threshold is just A SECOND slippery slope. > The first is an attempt to mislead people about eve…

You're either extremely misinformed or are being intentionally disingenuous.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became...

Are you also against spam filters, virus scanners, security certificate warnings, mixed content warnings, and known malware domain click-throughs?

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#147
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any recommendations for a Google Drive replacement?

It isn't for everyone, but I host my own NextCloud instance on a personal server. Works fine after a bit of tweaking, but it can be a pain to set up.

I wonder what it would cost to run a fallback instance on Google or Amazon cloud, like if my ISP/cable modem craps out for whatever reason.

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#148

Except for video playback. Makes my mac catch fire and still stutters. edit: downvotes? you guys using some build I'm not? Because I'm on nightly.

On Windows too, MP4 videos spins up fan - only with new Firefox (neither with Chrome nor IE)

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#149
post #28

I wish they had some better UX designers. Hit the download button and I get a .bz2 file with no install scripts whatsoever. $ tar jxvf firefox-57.0.tar.bz2 $ cd firefox $ mkdir /usr/local/firefox mkdir: cannot create directory '/usr/local/firefox': Permission denied $ sudo su Password: # mkdir /usr/local/firefox # cp -rv * /usr/local/firefox/ ... # ln -s /usr/local/firefox/firefox /usr/bin/firefox ln: failed to creat…

What I really want is for them to support Flatpak. A 3rd party is doing this work for Nightly and Developer, but I'd like to see Mozilla get on this train, and then the whole distro specific packaging thing is no longer a thing. They're already doing the heavy lifting with their own tarball.

https://flatpak.org/apps

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#150

With all this push for Quantum, I wonder what the extension landscape is like. I’ve heard people complain about FF dropping support for old extension APIs (absolutely no idea if this is true - just murmurs). As a Dev, would now technically be a good time to consider building an extension for Firefox?

From what I understand the Webextension API is somewhat standardized, and intended for the long haul. So, now would seem like the time.
Post reply on HN