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

251–260 of 340 posts

Re: Firefox 94

#251

Post by fortyseven »

spaghettiandm wrote: post #220
LarryDarrell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I groan whenever I see a Firefox post on the front page. -"X moved Y pixels making Firefox UNUSABLE! So now I use Brave." -"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…

>-"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,…

"You might not realize that some people hold very strong religious beliefs about marriage..."

Fuck 'em.

Re: Firefox 94

#252

Post by gildas »

EastOfTruth wrote: post #248
gildas wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can install other extensions by using Firefox Nightly [1] which is quite stable actually. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...

Why do you need to create a collection? I was happy when all extensions was the only collection. And this has been in Nightly for about a year.. when is it coming to stable? (those questions aren't really questions, it just looks like Mozilla is trying to make extensions go away)

I agree. However, as an extension author, I was happy to hear that the work I put into making it compatible with Android didn't go to waste after all. Still better than nothing.

Re: Firefox 94

#253

Post by dangoor »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #141
jitl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It's an outstanding achievement that Firefox remains competitive with Chrome - and even exceeds it - given the disparity of resources between Mozilla and Google. The Firefox community also tends to be more responsive on their bugtracker than the Chrome/Chromium team. (seriously, great work y'all) (also, they've even caught up to Chrome in version numbers! joke)

I'm fairly certain Google just pays Mozilla money to avoid any claims about being a monopoly browser.

My understanding (with the caveat that I worked for Mozilla a decade ago) is that Google pays Mozilla and Apple money for browser search placement because it directly makes them money in ad revenue. Someone put the numbers into a spreadsheet and said "yeah, it works."

Re: Firefox 94

#254

Post by hilbert42 »

Taywee wrote: post #158
hilbert42 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I don't know about this version but at least one could uninstall the maintenance service. You'd obviously be able to uninstall this, too. If your OS allows third-party programs to install services that can not be disabled or uninstalled, the problem is deeper than just the programs you are installing; you need a different OS. > Mozilla has a damned hide to automate updates, not to mention gathering data about users…

"You'd obviously be able to uninstall this, too"

Likely so, or I'd never install it. The OSes I use do allow one to uninstall it: specifically Linux, heavily rooted, fully deGoogleized Android and and a highly-hacked Windows 7† (wouldn't be seen dead with any later version for the same reasons).

"Telemetry is optional."

Turning off telemetry is optional for only some of Firefox's telemetry. The first thing Firefox does when launched is to contact home irrespective of how normal user settings are set. And as we well know, most users will use the defaults and Mozilla is counting on this quirk of human nature.

If Mozilla's bona fides were actually genuine and not sleight of hand then it would default all and every bit of telemetry to off and allow the user to switch it on if he or she so desired. BTW, I don't buy the argument that only some of the phone-home data counts as telemetry; by definition, any data sent to Mozilla is telemetry.

"What browser are you using that is much more private and secure than Firefox, and allows you the same flexibility in controlling the level of privacy you actually want?"

Palemoon. Read my 'Edit' in another of your related posts. Please note: that edit was posted before I'd read this post of yours.

__

† For starters, Internet Explorer code no longer exists, thus calls to IE by any program that wishes to bypass the new default browser will fail. This is only one of several thousand tweaks to Win 7 needed to make it user-friendly to yours truly.

Re: Firefox 94

#255

Post by LarryDarrell »

spaghettiandm wrote: post #220
LarryDarrell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I groan whenever I see a Firefox post on the front page. -"X moved Y pixels making Firefox UNUSABLE! So now I use Brave." -"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…

>-"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,…

It's fine to have religious beliefs. No one was forcing churches to perform gay marriages, so there was no reason to get the state constitution involved. There was no real reason to support Prop 8 unless your goal was to "lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."[1]

It was 2008. He was asked to run Mozilla, not Focus on the Family. It was an exceedingly dumb hill to die on.

[1]https://www.scribd.com/document/80680002/10-16696-398-Decisi...

Re: Firefox 94

#256

Post by Spivak »

mongol wrote: post #230
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,…

> And it wasn't removing the right for gays to marry, it was to keep the proposal from becoming a law. Additionally, it is not about the right to marry, it is about marriage as an institution and what is meant with it. Everyone had equal rights to marry also before, it is just that gays do not want to marry somone from the opposite sex.

"Everyone has the same access to marriage, interracial couples just don't want to marry someone of the same skin color."

No it's about the right for gays to access a legal secular institution. Civil unions do not confer all the rights and privileges of marriage. One of the possible resolutions to gay marriage was to make the legal institution for everyone called a civil-union but that proposal died almost immediately in the mid 2000s.

Re: Firefox 94

#257

Post by dralley »

spaghettiandm wrote: post #220
LarryDarrell wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I groan whenever I see a Firefox post on the front page. -"X moved Y pixels making Firefox UNUSABLE! So now I use Brave." -"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…

>-"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,…

And a point which doesn't get brought up often is that he was somewhat controversial before any of that came out. There were multiple resignations from the board when he was picked as CEO.

Re: Firefox 94

#258

Post by spaghettiandm »

suriyaG wrote: post #243
spaghettiandm wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think, the point where this logic misses is when somebody, with such christian belief, actively goes out and tries to vilify and fight against those who get married in a way that they disagree with.

Like the other commentor said, I think it's not about the people themselves as much as it is about the institution of marriage. I think that even the people who hold flags saying God hates fags aren't against civil unions.

Re: Firefox 94

#259

Post by jjcon »

BMorearty wrote: post #176
nullspace wrote: post #46

I am typing this from Firefox, which I switched back to right after Quantum. I don't want to give an impression that I'm a shill, but I'm getting more and more intrigued by Brave every day. I think they made the right call by focusing on crypto, their search indexing technique is very unique (and it works!), as is their BAT attention token. They are _trying_ to doing something different, Firefox is not. What I instea…

Click the gear icon on the New Tab page and turn off Sponsored Shortcuts.

That has never worked for me at least back when i used firefox - the only thing that did work was entirely new tab pages with addons

Re: Firefox 94

#260

Post by sharps1 »

freeqaz wrote: post #130
nullspace wrote: post #46

I am typing this from Firefox, which I switched back to right after Quantum. I don't want to give an impression that I'm a shill, but I'm getting more and more intrigued by Brave every day. I think they made the right call by focusing on crypto, their search indexing technique is very unique (and it works!), as is their BAT attention token. They are _trying_ to doing something different, Firefox is not. What I instea…

I donate every month instead of dealing with the ads. $20 per month is a lot more money than they'd get by me looking at ads, and I can afford to pay that towards something that makes a big difference for the long-term health of the web!

Donations go to the foundation, not moz corp which builds Firefox.

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/

EDIT: At this point either pocket or their vpn seem to be the only way to get money to the corporation, even then may not be a lot.

Post reply on HN