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

Firefox 68.0

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 282 posts

Re: Firefox 68.0

#271

Post by Fnoord »

jackewiehose wrote: post #233
mncolinlee wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most users will only use an ad blocker that is built-in. You should consider how elitist it is to confine ad blockers to users who know and trust certain extensions vetted by their community, but not the remaining extensions which have been a minefield. Having a built-in ad blocker doesn't hinder an app from also accepting extensions which block ads.

Originally I wasn't even concerned about an adblocker being built-in. I was just afraid that it will be used as an argument against more powerful extensions. But you brought up another point: I think it is in the nature of an adblocker, that it MUST be "elitist" to be actually useful. If every browser does "adblocking" by default, the ads will just adapt. That will be as useless as the HTTP-Header "dont-track-me".

Good, let ads adapt. Then the adblockers adapt once more. And so on, and so forth. If ads were delivered by the same source/domain (ie. it wasn't outsoured to an ad network who also do profiling) people would have less issues with them.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#272

Post by lucb1e »

Fnoord wrote: post #270

If I add a certificate on Android (for example for WPA2-Enterprise), do I need to disable security.certerrors.mitm.auto_enable_enterprise_roots if I don't want those with access to the private key to be able to MITM me?

You might want to ask that on superuser or the security stackexchange site.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#273

Post by lucb1e »

driverdan wrote: post #63
geokon wrote: post #20

"Cryptomining and fingerprinting protections are added to strict content blocking settings in Privacy & Security preferences." my first reaction is it's really sad to see this. looks like something Google blackmailed them into adding. maybe Im missing some aspect to this.. but why is mining crypto bad but showing ads is not? I rather mine coins/ether/whatever for the website owners than see more ads moving away from…

You're better off donating money. The electric cost of mining in the browser is higher than the payout.

If people did that, we'd indeed not need crypto miners or the huge amount of ads that we enjoy today.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#274

Post by Fnoord »

lucb1e wrote: post #272
Fnoord wrote: post #270

If I add a certificate on Android (for example for WPA2-Enterprise), do I need to disable security.certerrors.mitm.auto_enable_enterprise_roots if I don't want those with access to the private key to be able to MITM me?

You might want to ask that on superuser or the security stackexchange site.

Thanks. I don't have accounts there, nor do I plan to have.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#275

Post by arantius »

sjwright wrote: post #236
jackewiehose wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, we do have concrete plans for supporting adblocking as a built-in feature in the near future reading this almost makes me cry because that is the same bullshit google is telling us with chrome. Firefox is not supposed to block ads! Firefox only has to provide an interface for addons so they can do whatever(!!!) they want (for example blocking ads or installing malware on your system). Please don't sacrific…

Why would you want a Firefox add-on to be able to install malware on your system?

Because I want it to be that powerful.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#276

Post by lucb1e »

Fnoord wrote: post #274
lucb1e wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to ask that on superuser or the security stackexchange site.

Thanks. I don't have accounts there, nor do I plan to have.

You don't need to, actually. It's one of the few unwalled gardens left on the Internet :). You can ask questions, post answers, and even propose edits to other people's posts without having an account.

Edit: to clarify, I would have answered your question if I knew. I don't, but I think those sites give good answers.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#277

Post by darkpuma »

Certhas wrote: post #268
darkpuma wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not wanting my workflow broken and replaced with inferior software is "elitist"? I don't think so. I hope your attitude isn't prevalent inside of Mozilla. You can say that breaking existing extensions isn't necessary, yet that's exactly what has already happened once and seems like it will happen again.

Yeah, a lot of it is elitist. In other parts of this thread people are complaining about Vimperator being broken by the switch to WebExtensions. The switch to WebExtensions allowed all the excellent performance improvements we have been seeing in Firefox over the last year. So it improved the performance for everyone, and broke a feature that a small minority used. That minority is a highly specialized, highly traine…

People are not less deserving of stable software or good UX by virtue of being highly specialized and highly trained. These users, as much as anybody, have every right to be upset when their software experience is degraded, so I reject your premise unequivocally. If opinions like yours are prevalent inside Mozilla, then the organization has gone cancerous and I fear it's days of producing praise-worthy software are drawing to a close.

Consider the following: over the years I have convinced a dozen or two users in non-technical careers to switch to firefox. Most of them do not install extensions, at least for themselves. However, without extensions, I would not have recommended firefox to them in the first place. Firefox's rise in popularity is owed to the word of mouth campaign carried out primarily by people with technical/foss careers or inclinations. Why would I, or anybody, suggest a browser that I do not enjoy using? To suggest software to somebody is to go out on a limb for that software, because if the person you are suggesting it to has a bad experience with that software, your personal reputation will take the hit for recommending it. So why on earth would I stick my neck out to promote Firefox when Firefox is no longer software that cares about the needs of users like myself? If Firefox has adopted a "socially progressive" model of disregarding the needs of technical users because such users have more software-privilege, then they have taken the wind out of their own sails[sales].

(I put the words 'social progress' in scare-quotes because I also reject the premise that infantilizing software is in fact socially progressive. In truth it's socially regressive, since it's effectively technical people deliberately reducing the exposure non-technical users have to technical problems that might challenge them to learn more. The true impact of infantilizing consumer software is to pull the ladder up behind us. Reinforcing and widening the dichotomy between technical and non-technical users is inherently socially regressive.)

Re: Firefox 68.0

#278

Post by mncolinlee »

darkpuma wrote: post #243
mncolinlee wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most users will only use an ad blocker that is built-in. You should consider how elitist it is to confine ad blockers to users who know and trust certain extensions vetted by their community, but not the remaining extensions which have been a minefield. Having a built-in ad blocker doesn't hinder an app from also accepting extensions which block ads.

Not wanting my workflow broken and replaced with inferior software is "elitist"? I don't think so. I hope your attitude isn't prevalent inside of Mozilla. You can say that breaking existing extensions isn't necessary, yet that's exactly what has already happened once and seems like it will happen again.

Extensions can be a good thing for sure. But they need to be done right. Hacking out some hurried implementation of extensions is how malware and security advisories happen. It is elitist to suggest that the desires of the 3% trump building a good browser first.

Also, the Internet and most technology happens to break existing workflows. We shouldn't assume disruption is bad if the result is an improved version.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#279

Post by Endy »

dredmorbius wrote: post #121
Endy wrote: post #32

I'll be downvoted to Hell for this, but I don't care. With each subsequent release of Firefox, I'm consistently happy that I've moved to Pale Moon. The nonsense they're adding and the problems that Mozilla has to "fix" seem more often than not to be brought on themselves with the rapid-release and the move away from being Firefox to being "almost Chrome". The move to multi-process (which has introduced memory leaks),…

This reads far better without the first sentence.

Perhaps so, but I was absolutely correct on the response.

Re: Firefox 68.0

#280

Post by patrickmcnamara »

whycombagator wrote: post #139
patrickmcnamara wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Videostreams are way smoother using Chrome, at least on Linux. This is also the reason I use Chromium. I'd switch to Firefox as soon as it supports VA-API on GNU/Linux.

Interesting, multiple streaming platforms did not work on Chromium for me. So I'd have to switch to FF to view them. I now use FF full time

Chromium doesn't include the proprietary Widevine DRM. You can patch it in though, which is what I do.
Post reply on HN