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

Firefox 94

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 340 posts

Re: Firefox 94

#231

Post by throw10920 »

rndgermandude wrote: post #209
jitl wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be competitive with Chrome and Safari, Firefox needs the following table stakes: - Excellent performance and reliability. Quantum delivered a lot of performance wins, and work continues at a rapid rate on reliability. Unfortunately, to be competitive on performance and reliability given Mozilla's funding required dropping XUL :( - A simplified, modern UI. It's fair to argue about specifics here like "tabs as butto…

>Excellent performance and reliability. Quantum delivered a lot of performance wins, and work continues at a rapid rate on reliability. Unfortunately, to be competitive on performance and reliability given Mozilla's funding required dropping XUL :( Not really true. For starters, they did not drop XUL with Quantum. In fact, they did not drop XUL to this very day[1]. The thing they did drop was XUL and low level access…

> Firefox performs better for me in general

This is genuinely surprising for me. Would you mind showing me what your JetStream[1] numbers are?

[1] https://browserbench.org/JetStream/

Re: Firefox 94

#232

Post by spaghettiandm »

drxzcl wrote: post #229
spaghettiandm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>-"Mozilla is run by a bunch of SJW idiots because they ran their CEO off. So now I run Brave." (I had to look into this, as I wasn't paying attention at the time. They picked a new CEO who cared so passionately about removing the right of gay people to get married he even donated his own money to the cause. That was a dumb hill to die on. Now he's an anti-masker who actually runs Brave.) It wasn't a hill to die on,…

There are a lot of Mozilla developers and users that are directly harmed by legislation like this or are close to people that are directly harmed. “You might not realize” that these people also hold very strong beliefs about this. He displayed extremely poor judgement. The fact that it was a personal donation does not exempt him from accountability.

Why is donating to a cause you believe in extremely poor judgement?

> “You might not realize”

The tone of my post wasn't the friendliest it could have been I agree, but I get really annoyed when people imply that those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, which from a Christian perspective is very clear, are evil.

Re: Firefox 94

#233

Post by dotancohen »

kaba0 wrote: post #214
y7 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but why would you? Because updates can introduce breaking changes. And potentially new security vulnerabilities.

So you prefer old and known/already exploited security vulnerabilities?

Yes!

Linus calls this trading old bugs for new bugs, and is vehemently against introducing commits that may introduce new bugs, no matter the severity of the bug that the commit squashes.

Re: Firefox 94

#234

Post by Y-bar »

losvedir wrote: post #172

So, uh, how do I undo my colorways selection? On opening after the new update it gave me a little panel to choose from, and I picked one, but I don't like it now... but I can't see anything in the settings to revert, or to try a different one? I don't see anything about it in the "Colors" section of the Settings, and searching at the top for "colorways" doesn't return anything. edit: Found it! In the settings on the…

Glad you found it. If anyone else goes looking it is a bitr down on the about:addons settings page.

Re: Firefox 94

#235

Post by pohl »

sirodoht wrote: post #105
gnomewascool wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CMD + Q is a two-key command, so presumably the warning will still be present.

I frequently press cmd+W to close the current tab. Unfortunately pressing one key to the left by mistake has happened too many times.

Typing in Dvorak really saves me here (the 'w' is down where the comma key is.)

Re: Firefox 94

#236

Post by sfink »

hilbert42 wrote: post #83
nikbackm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've had the MozillaMaintenance service for several years on Windows already, what has changed now?

I don't know about this version but at least one could uninstall the maintenance service. It was the first thing I'd nuke before allowing my PC to reconnect to the internet, the second was to nuke every talk-home-Mozilla link that about:config would allow to either be changed or deleted. This worked, as updates wouldn't even work when clicking 'updates' in the menu. Mozilla has a damned hide to automate updates, not…

Mozilla "inside agent" here. (Not really, but I work for Mozilla. Don't speak for them etc.) I didn't consider downvoting, but since you mentioned it below it would kind of make sense, since much of what you say here is objectively false. But you're raising legitimate concerns, so I have no reason to prevent your post from being seen.

Mozilla is very open about what is collected, and all of it can be turned off. We'd really rather you not lock in insecure versions; until you've worked on a browser, you won't believe how active and pervasive the attacks are. As a developer, I'll also say that the internal process for adding any additional collection is pretty heavyweight. Even if you're just collecting the distribution of garbage collection time slices, you need to go through a privacy data review.

Mozilla spells out its data collection policies at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/ (first DDG hit for "mozilla privacy", which is how I found it). If something there is unclear, or you have reason to believe we're a bunch of scheming liars and you have the receipts to prove it, please let me know.

Firefox Suggest is a calculated tradeoff to provide more functionality in exchange for sending more data, but again it's totally configurable if you disagree with the tradeoff.

I honestly don't know what you're going on about with "Mozilla's comments on v94's webpage", so I can't respond to that.

I will assert that Mozilla is very much not going the way of the rest of the industry, and we are in fact being very conscious to carve out a different path. Which isn't easy. But if you have the degree of distrust conveyed by your message, then please don't use Firefox. It's not doing you or us any favors.

It's fine to call out specific problems and gaps though. Feedback is good, and anyone interested enough to seriously look at this is welcome to get involved with the Mozilla project and contribute to improving this stuff.

Re: Firefox 94

#237

Post by BMorearty »

mavroprovato wrote: post #215
BMorearty wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I looked at that one but I’m not looking for something that takes up more space, either horizontally or vertically. I like how Chrome’s tab groups just collapse your tabs along the top tab bar.

Maybe then this is more to your liking? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/panorama-tab-... (I too don't know how Chrome tab groups work)

No, I’ve looked at every tab group addon I can find. None works to my liking.

Re: Firefox 94

#238

Post by conradfr »

krzyk wrote: post #129
FriedrichN wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's also shrinking to be almost the only reason I run Firefox. I absolutely loathe the constant tinkering with UI and settings, they just can't seem to leave stuff alone. The ghacks user.js does get rid of a lot of nuisances, but I also know some people also want to get rid of the user.js config option.

What UI changes? I run firefox nightly for ages and minor sizing changes are barely noticeable. The biggest change was moving of address bar lower and tabs higher.

Proton is not even six months old, surely you must remember.

Re: Firefox 94

#239

Post by kaba0 »

dotancohen wrote: post #233
kaba0 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you prefer old and known/already exploited security vulnerabilities?

Yes! Linus calls this trading old bugs for new bugs, and is vehemently against introducing commits that may introduce new bugs, no matter the severity of the bug that the commit squashes.

Linus is known to have strong opinions and he can be often very wrong. Also, linux is not the epitome of security, so I don’t see how it applies here — I would much prefer if half of all computers wouldn’t turn into a giant bot net.

Re: Firefox 94

#240

Post by uzegonemad »

SwiftyBug wrote: post #17

> Firefox no longer warns you by default when you exit the browser or close a window using a menu, button, or three-key command. Why would anyone want this? On macOS it is infuriantingly easy to press CMD + Q by accident. Why would you not want to confirm that you actually want to close ALL your tabs?

I override this at a system level for some apps (e.g. Firefox, VS Code) by taking the following steps:

  1. Open System Prefs and go to Keyboard > Shortcuts
  2. Select "App Shortcuts", then press the + Button
  3. Choose "Firefox" (or other relevant app) from the dropdown
  4. Type *exactly* the name of the menu option that has the CMD + Q shortcut next to it, in this case "Quit Firefox"
  5. Focus on the Keyboard Shortuct input and choose whatever new key combination you want to be used for quitting the app. I usually use CTRL + CMD + SHIFT + Q
  6. Press the Add button
This video is older but also shows the general process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWbEBipLxKA
Post reply on HN