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

Firefox 72.0

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 543 posts

Re: Firefox 72.0

#241

Post by cpeterso »

icebraining wrote: post #186
jannes wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qwant doesn't work for me at all on Firefox. It displays an empty page. Does anyone else have that problem? In the console I get a warning and an error: > Content Security Policy: Couldn’t process unknown directive ‘script-src-elem’ > TypeError: browserLanguage is undefined

For some reason, your Firefox profile doesn't have a preferred language, but Qwant expects one. If you add one in the Preferences (option "Choose your preferred language for displaying pages"), it should work.

Seems like Firefox should fall back to the OS language of a preferred language had not been set in the browser. I wonder how that happened.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#242

Post by ridiculous_fish »

tgv wrote: post #165
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #84

Here's my Firefox wishlist: - Open new windows more quickly. Firefox feels sluggish (on Mac) even though it isn't, simply because it opens new windows far more slowly than Safari or Chrome. - Use the platform native key store. I don't want my passwords stored unencrypted on disk. But I don't want to enter a separate master password either. I do want to use fingerprint/face unlock on mobile to reveal passwords. - Give…

> Open new windows more quickly. Windows open more quickly now than before. A few versions ago, it had become unbearably slow (I'm an FF user since Camino died), and I stuck to using tabs only, but 72 seems to have caught up again. I estimate that it's around 0.3s slower than Chrome on my machine. > Use the platform native key store. Amen to that.

Confirming the window opening speedup! Previously FF spent a lot of time compiling shaders when opening a new window. Perhaps these are now been cached.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#244

Post by [deleted] »

dsirola wrote: post #198

I really like Firefox, but I had to switch back to Chrome because of resource usage. After using it for some time it got up to 3GB RAM consumption for a single tab with no plugins.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 72.0

#245

Post by [deleted] »

driverdan wrote: post #236
hackinthebochs wrote: post #184

Has firefox fixed video playback on sites like instagram and gfycat yet? Their mp4 playback was broken for a significant number of videos last time I attempted to update. I'm still on an FF version 10 versions back because of their atrocious compatibility with mp4s (which is still incompatible, but less so).

This sounds like a problem with your system. I've been using Firefox for years and have never had problems playing MP4s or anything from Instagram or Gfycat.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 72.0

#246

Post by ilikepi »

harikb wrote: post #35

What do people use for “Profiles”. I need ability to switch easily between profiles (different identities) without going to command line. I also don’t want to install a third party extension for that if possible

On macOS, instead of running Firefox via the app icon, I run a an AppleScript[0] that forces Firefox to launch with the Profile Manager window. I have it bundled as a one-step Automator application, which I run from Spotlight but which can easily be added to the Dock or whatever.

I used to have this script built as an app bundle via Platypus, but that stopped working somewhere between Yosemite and Mojave (likely due to increasingly strict OS file permissions or something). The Automator app doesn't seem to suffer from this issue...I think I just had to grant it a couple permissions the first time I ran it.

I wasn't able to figure out how to set a custom icon from within Automator, but it's not too hard to do if you're comfortable mucking around inside app bundles. The icon file is stored under /Contents/Resources/, and its name (sans extension) is referenced in /Info.plist.

[0]: https://gist.github.com/ilikepi/9d2e17e0d3b3efd6fc0584f46f09...

Re: Firefox 72.0

#247

Post by zamadatix »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #231
zamadatix wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think of a standard user: - Do they really need to see* http:// or https:// if immediately to the left is the icon which indicates secure/insecure (which is more than just "protocol is https or not")? - Do they really care to see* if they are at www.site.com or m.site.com or site.com or do they just want to know they are at site.com which they expect to be as they make their purchase or log in? * noting that b…

> If you think of a standard user You mean the strawman repeatedly trotted out by people defending shitty changes as justifications for why their shitty change is necessary? Ever wonder why so many things suck nowadays?

Nope, just mean "not the guy that writes the webapp who needs to see if he is currently connected via HTTP or HTTPS".

Can "the larger group" be used as an excuse for a bad change? Sure! But so far the only reason mentioned as to WHY this change is bad is "www.site.com and site.com could technically be different sites" and I'm not sure how that is supposed to be clear regardless if www shows post load or not or how that's supposed to outweigh the advantages.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#248

Post by zamadatix »

vel0city wrote: post #229
zamadatix wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think of a standard user: - Do they really need to see* http:// or https:// if immediately to the left is the icon which indicates secure/insecure (which is more than just "protocol is https or not")? - Do they really care to see* if they are at www.site.com or m.site.com or site.com or do they just want to know they are at site.com which they expect to be as they make their purchase or log in? * noting that b…

While somewhat a bad form for general web browsing, its definitely possible for www.site.com and site.com to be entirely different hosts. In newer versions of Chrome, you would never know which one you were actually on unless you select in the address bar. Maybe dropping the protocol definition in the URL is debatable, as probably 99.99% of the time in Chrome a user is going to be either http or https, but dropping a…

Possible and reasonable are different things. If www.google.com gave you gmail and google.com gave you search users were confused before www was hidden post load.

You can't really get rid of the TLD without breaking the security model of the web (e.g. a lock icon and google.com is different than a lock icon and google.gtld). Would it be nice to refactor that? Probably. Is it reasonably possible at this point? No.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#249

Post by Freak_NL »

bitcurious wrote: post #97
maxheadroom wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I still consider DuckDuckGo to be in the "not bad" category... If you're into privacy-conscious search engines and want one that's not susceptible to blanket FISA warrants[0], check out either Qwant[1] or SwissCows[2]. [0] - DuckDuckGo's address is in Pennsylvania - 20 Paoli Pike, Paoli, PA 19301. [1] - https://www.qwant.com [2] - https://swisscows.ch/

Re:qwant France has a more permissive surveillance regime than the US[0], and as a foreign (US) user I have no recourse if they spy on me. Furthermore, here are some quotes from qwant: >We do not use any cookies or other advertising tracers to create your profile for commercial purposes. This means that you can use Qwant with confidence, we will never try to establish your psychological or commercial profile to sell…

> more permissive

That should probably read 'more pervasive'.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#250

Post by dmix »

School-Cotton wrote: post #83
yori wrote: post #5

After the recent missteps by Chrome (mangling the display of URLs), I decided to switch to Firefox and DuckDuckGo a few months ago and I was pleasantly surprised at how fast Firefox is these days than what I found it to be 10 years ago. While I still consider DuckDuckGo to be in the "not bad" category, Firefox is in the "seriously awesome" category now. If you have been away from Firefox for a while like me, give it…

> After the recent missteps by Chrome (mangling the display of URLs) Me too! I'm not as bothered by software-politics as many of the commentators on here (I don't hate Facebook, and worked there for four years; I don't hate ads; I don't worry too much about trafficking and privacy...) but Chrome fucking with the URL was a bridge too far. I switched to Firefox and when Google walked back their hiding-the-URL business,…

What's the story with Chrome messing up URLs? I missed that one...
Post reply on HN