Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 67.0 Released

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 264 posts

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#201

Post by user17843 »

radcon wrote: post #131
danShumway wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's sufficient yet to stop someone determined, but I do think it's a step in the right direction, particularly when combined with a VPN. I'm looking forward to the letterboxing improvements. Anecdotally, I get a lot more captcha's when it's turned on. I regularly log in to sites and get prompts telling me I need to enter email confirmation codes. I signed up for a service recently that auto locked my a…

I agree, those are good signs. If these fingerprint protection tools are effective, my main fear is that websites will simply say "Disable your fingerprint protection if you want to proceed", much like many sites currently do with ad blockers. Or if they don't spell it out in plain English, they'll make you jump through so many hoops that you'll switch it off just to end the suffering. Trying to interact with any maj…

The fingerprint protection this new setting refers to is simply a blacklist of a couple of known JS fingerprinters. Those are not relevant for the majority of users, because fingerprinting with these kind of scripts is only used by a very small number of obscure sites.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#202

Post by blitmap »

zimbatm wrote: post #11

Firefox 67 also the first browser that ships with `prefers-color-scheme` (aka dark mode) after Safari. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref... And it does the right thing and disables the feature when enabling the resist fingerprinting option. I did a small survey and only very few websites have developed a second dark theme: https://zimbatm.com/DarkMode

It's frustrating to me that browsers lend themselves so willingly to being fingerprinted, and it's up to the user to stay aware of and keep ahead of these new avenues.

I wish there were 4 modes:

- Standard/light mode

- Dark mode (website has facilities to test for this and style accordingly)

- Dark mode with fake or unknown values advertised to the website

- Dark mode with a user-custom filter applied (like below) that the website cannot test for (it sees untransformed computed styles)

> filter: invert(95%) hue-rotate(190deg)

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#203

Post by modzu »

swozey wrote: post #61
Crosseye_Jack wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who codes dark mode first thanks for the lazy “OMG, my eyes...” mode ;-)

Have you used the Dark Reader addon? It's not amazing in firefox (has major performance issues on some sites) but I can't live without it.

a lightweight alternative to dark reader is this one:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/night-light-m...

YMMV

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#205

Post by xorcist »

noisem4ker wrote: post #165
sdsdsdsds wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to code with black themes for a long time but not anymore: Why not simply lower your screen brightness ? I feel it better for my eyes because the text which i'm looking at is actually dark and not bright. Most people with dark themes have high brightness levels on their screens. I think this can be bad on the long term. Especially that many screen elements are not as dark as their code, which makes them ultra…

Do people also get annoyed at printed paper being white? Do they wish books had black pages? If not, as you say, it is only a matter of adjusting the screen for the proper brightness, depending on ambient light. And it is true that, inevitably, whatever you're doing, sooner or later some white background or picture will appear on screen and blast your eyes with light. I cannot stand this, so I don't use dark themes o…

> Do people also get annoyed at printed paper being white?

Printed paper glowing white would indeed be very annoying.

Passive displays, such as old non-backlit LCD or e-ink, can be white and not annoying. Most people don't want to stare into a light source more than necessary.

Using proper brightness helps, and dark mode can help even more.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#206

Post by dblohm7 »

groovybits wrote: post #200
callahad wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two sides to that coin: 1. People do genuinely seem to find it useful (it's been a feature in Developer Edition for years), so that's cool, but also... 2. Sharing a profile between different versions of Firefox can cause data loss, and profile-per-install makes it harder to accidentally make that mistake. So it's win-win. As for why people find it useful, I've mainly seen two camps: - People who want to kee…

I see the use case for developers who want to test multiple versions. But as stevekemp said, the average user is losing their profile when simply upgrading from one version to the next. And it seems that the fix to this is to go back into the Profile Manager and set you old profile as the new default. Wouldn't this inadvertently cause data loss for the average user? (Ex: My parents do not even know Profile Manager is…

> But as stevekemp said, the average user is losing their profile when simply upgrading from one version to the next.

That's a bug and is not supposed to happen.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#207

Post by modzu »

alanh wrote: post #182
zimbatm wrote: post #11

Firefox 67 also the first browser that ships with `prefers-color-scheme` (aka dark mode) after Safari. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref... And it does the right thing and disables the feature when enabling the resist fingerprinting option. I did a small survey and only very few websites have developed a second dark theme: https://zimbatm.com/DarkMode

Psst: Night Eye is a browser extension that has really, deeply impressed me by managing to give almost every website and web app a good-enough 'night mode,' surpassing all the quick-hack filter() solutions and more common extensions like Darken. https://nighteye.app/

reviews for that look harsh. its limited to 5 sites?? another alternative is (shameless plug) this one:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/night-light-m...

its open source :)

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#208

Post by Faark »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #38
mbrubeck wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both private and not-private windows, the browser asks the user whether to save each password. Nothing is saved unless you explicitly click the Save button.

Ok, but I think the parent is wondering in what situation you'd want to store in the browser details of a site you'd visited, but still use private mode to "hide" that you'd visited? What data does the password use retain? IIRC password store retains the "time first used, time last used" and displays that visibly. In short what's the use-case or user story that fits this feature?

> What data does the password use retain? IIRC password store retains the "time first used, time last used" and displays that visibly.

Lets compare it to downloads. That's another feature that leaves quite a bit of "compromising" info but users might still want to use it. I am thankful that Firefox does still allow downloads in private mode and did not just disable it. Sure, I could copy all the links into a non private session, but that would be annoying.

Similarly, imagining a situation were saving passwords from private windows might come in handy doesn't seem like a hard stretch to me. It also pretty obviously leaves a trace, just like a download, and thus shouldn't create much user confusion.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#209

Post by callahad »

groovybits wrote: post #200
callahad wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two sides to that coin: 1. People do genuinely seem to find it useful (it's been a feature in Developer Edition for years), so that's cool, but also... 2. Sharing a profile between different versions of Firefox can cause data loss, and profile-per-install makes it harder to accidentally make that mistake. So it's win-win. As for why people find it useful, I've mainly seen two camps: - People who want to kee…

I see the use case for developers who want to test multiple versions. But as stevekemp said, the average user is losing their profile when simply upgrading from one version to the next. And it seems that the fix to this is to go back into the Profile Manager and set you old profile as the new default. Wouldn't this inadvertently cause data loss for the average user? (Ex: My parents do not even know Profile Manager is…

> Am I interpreting this correctly?

Not quite. In the normal case, users will never see any difference as a result of this change. Most users will experience it, semantically, as "profile per channel," separating normal Firefox from Firefox Nightly, etc. And if you only use stable Firefox, you only have one profile.

That means that upgrading from Firefox n to Firefox n+1 is totally fine and it will continue to use the same profile. But installing Beta or Nightly will now default to using a separate profile, instead of trying to use the same local data as normal Firefox.

I suspect Steve's issue is because he's unpacking his new version of Firefox to a different location on disk, so we're treating it like a separate install, rather than an upgrade of an already installed Firefox.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#210

Post by will4274 »

judge2020 wrote: post #189
will4274 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an anti-feature. Firefox enabled a deprecated standard because Google couldn't be bothered to move to the current standard. Classic catering to the big players.

I can't find the source, but I believe they didn't upgrade to the newer standard due to some combination of existing keys and ChromeOS.

They helped write the new standard and it's been a standard for years now. There is really no excuse.
Post reply on HN