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

Firefox 74

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 269 posts

Re: Firefox 74

#241

Post by freeopinion »

spartas wrote: post #212
freeopinion wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

protonmail did the oddest thing to me the other day. It sent an email to my gmail account to inform me that I had received an email at my protonmail address. I was stunned. The main point of having the protonmail account was to keep google out of my business. Now I have to find a provider that doesn't leak in the dumbest of ways.

In protonmail, Settings → Daily email notifications → Disabled. No, I don't understand why that isn't the default setting either.

Yes. The email protonmail sent to my gmail account informed me of this lovely default. One email too late.

Re: Firefox 74

#242

Post by jbonisteel »

frankjr wrote: post #33
spatulon wrote: post #9

I'd love to hear if they made any progress in tracking down the 'interesting WebRender bug' from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359574

They have, it's suspected to be caused by a race condition with memory pressure events [0][1]. It looks like the patch is not included in Firefox 74 though. [0] https://mozillagfx.wordpress.com/2020/03/02/moz-gfx-newslett... [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1617083

yeah our potential fix is on Firefox Beta right now, if people want to try it out!

Re: Firefox 74

#243

Post by johnisgood »

richdougherty wrote: post #238
atombender wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't want to micromanage "containers" as a user. I truly don't understand why this is considered a nice feature. Who wants to micromanage anything? What I want is for every web page to run in its own container by default. Zero configuration. If it wants to access anything outside of its allowed domain hiearchy (like call an external API), I'd like the browser to ask for permission on its behalf. "Githu…

I use Temporary Containers for getting each web page to run in its own container: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con... When I want to stay logged into anything I self-manage and create a named container. (This requires micromanaging but is at least opt-in.) But the default of separate temp containers is great.

Is there a similar extension for Chrome/Chromium?

Re: Firefox 74

#244

Post by sfink »

itwy wrote: post #166
stavros wrote: post #14

The Facebook container is great, but I wish there was an option for the built-in Multi-Account containers to work this way. I've been doing what the Facebook Container extension does, but with built-in containers, and the experience is very clunky. The two biggest issues are that I can't give the container a list of domains beforehand and say "everything under google.com should open here". I have to go to each Google…

Why you keep saying "built-in containers", it's not built-in, it's an add-on.

The core functionality is and must be built in. You can't do very much with it in that state, so Multi-Account Containers is an user interface to configure and access most of the user-facing functionality. Some of that can be enabled just by toggling a couple of about:config settings, though. And as far as I know, though, it doesn't have privileged access to container APIs, so you could replace it with other addons.

So whether it's more correct to be referring to the built-in functionality (including some of the UI elements), or the add-on, depends on exactly what you're talking about. And it's hard to distinguish.

Re: Firefox 74

#245

Post by sfink »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #221
kyleee wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh that makes me worry, what happened to TST for you?

I can only close tabs with Ctrl+W. Clicking on the 'x' button does nothing.

Something's weird, then, given the number of Mozilla devs who use TST. Try in safe mode / try in a different profile / file a bug.

(I am running Nightly and am happily clicking away TST tabs with the 'x'.)

Re: Firefox 74

#246

Post by JohnTHaller »

Fnoord wrote: post #186
blahyawnblah wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it OK to be track by Apple or Netflix?

> Why is it OK to be track by Apple or Netflix? That is not what I asserted. I asserted I don't care about it. I don't believe Netflix tracks me outside of .netflix.com and I don't believe Apple tracks me outside of .apple.com (and the other domains ofc). If they do, you have to convince me it is harming my interests (ie. my privacy or freedom of choice). I know Google tracks me, I know Facebook tracks me. Their prof…

Now that Apple is forcing app developers to use Sign in with Apple -- and developers will have to also allow it on their websites so you can access your account there -- Apple will be able to use the Sign in with Apple javascript they serve to track you around the web just like Facebook and Google do, even if you don't use any Apple products.

Re: Firefox 74

#247

Post by velosol »

cdubzzz wrote: post #84
Semaphor wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multi-account works great with containers, far superior to chrome. What you mean is probably multi-profile. I have never used that with chrome, but with FF I can go to about:profiles to open a new one or (according to a quick search) have a shortcut to the profile switcher or to a specific profile. What does Chrome do better?

> What does Chrome do better? I haven't used Chrome in a long time, but this is the primary major thing I miss from it (possibly the only thing). E.g. we have a family computer that my spouse and I use. I have set up separate profiles for us and forced Firefox to ask which profile to use on launch. But this means that if she has the browser open and has stepped away, I can't just open a new window, switch to my profi…

Out of curiosity, why not have another user account on the computer? Windows is pretty simple to move between user accounts as is Linux and, although I haven't use macOS recently enough to comment, it was pretty easy the last time I did.

I'm sure our use cases are different but I'd like to understand yours better.

Re: Firefox 74

#248

Post by cassianoleal »

richdougherty wrote: post #238
atombender wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't want to micromanage "containers" as a user. I truly don't understand why this is considered a nice feature. Who wants to micromanage anything? What I want is for every web page to run in its own container by default. Zero configuration. If it wants to access anything outside of its allowed domain hiearchy (like call an external API), I'd like the browser to ask for permission on its behalf. "Githu…

I use Temporary Containers for getting each web page to run in its own container: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con... When I want to stay logged into anything I self-manage and create a named container. (This requires micromanaging but is at least opt-in.) But the default of separate temp containers is great.

I do the same. Have been doing it for a while now, and the internet still works but I get less creepy ads (when I do since I also block those as much as possible).

Re: Firefox 74

#249

Post by asveikau »

Santosh83 wrote: post #143
dao- wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do they mean the facebook container addon will come as standard, pre-installed with 74 or do they only mean they updated the addon? The latter.

Why is that being mentioned in the main application's release notes? Isn't it more appropriate on the addon's main page? This confused me too. I thought they were including Facebook Container by default like they did with Pocket, then could find no trace of it after updating.

I don't watch mozilla closely other than I run firefox in a couple of places [including typing this message], and it does seem to me that they often promo existing features as "new" assuming that people are unfamiliar with them, which in fairness, a lot of people are probably unfamiliar..

For example when they recently updated their android app, it was phrased as "our new android app" with the possible implication that it was written from scratch more recently [I was already using it]. And probably to a lot of potential users, it might as well be new, because most people are not on it.

Seems a tad slimy/deceptive/over-hyping. But I understand that the public at large is unaware of the feature set and they wish to make a good impression.

Re: Firefox 74

#250

Post by pgoggijr »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #246
Fnoord wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it OK to be track by Apple or Netflix? That is not what I asserted. I asserted I don't care about it. I don't believe Netflix tracks me outside of .netflix.com and I don't believe Apple tracks me outside of .apple.com (and the other domains ofc). If they do, you have to convince me it is harming my interests (ie. my privacy or freedom of choice). I know Google tracks me, I know Facebook tracks me. Their prof…

Now that Apple is forcing app developers to use Sign in with Apple -- and developers will have to also allow it on their websites so you can access your account there -- Apple will be able to use the Sign in with Apple javascript they serve to track you around the web just like Facebook and Google do, even if you don't use any Apple products.

While this is true, it is obvious how the other names he listed would benefit from such tracking. It is not clear to me why Apple would do this, as it runs opposite of their product marketing, and their business model does not obviously benefit from tracking the way the others do.
Post reply on HN