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

Firefox 90

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 351 posts

Re: Firefox 90

#291

Post by simondotau »

yboris wrote: post #123

The feature I'm most looking forward to is JPEG XL or .jxl (pronounced "jixel") - the new image format that will replace JPEG in 2022. It's in Firefox nightly: https://caniuse.com/jpegxl but the sooner it's in the regular release, the sooner we can all start experimenting with it and using it. https://jpegxl.info/

A great codec but a terrible and unmemorable name—from the group that gave us JPEG 2000, JPEG XR, JPEG XS and JPEG XT. Why take a great codec and name it "XL" which is the Euro/English moniker for extra large? What's so extra large about JPEG XL?

Jixel is a great name though. My advice would be for them to quietly rename it Jixel, Jixl or Jxl.

Re: Firefox 90

#292

Post by grumpyprole »

systemvoltage wrote: post #202
grumpyprole wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually much of the "hardware advances" were engineered with public money: internet, GPS, GSM, GPRS, battery, touchscreen etc. Big tech certainly takes more than it gives back in taxes. Even worse, some are polluting the planet with their unrepairable e-waste.

I am pretty much as anti-big-tech as it can get, but I can't lie to myself: YouTube has improved the world tremendously and provided me with tens of thousands of dollars of value. I cannot even fathom.

Yes, I like YouTube, but it was great even before Google bought it. Now it does come with privacy concerns. Luckily, there are other similar offerings.

Re: Firefox 90

#293

Post by design-material »

bergheim wrote: post #122

I think Firefox news is what I comment most on here. I don't know why. Well I guess I do. Web browsers, javascript etc is front and center here - which somewhat means the digital world. All my friends use Chrome, and think I'm weird. I think _they_ are. They care about human rights, at least I think they do. But, having Google, an ad company, dictate how our window to the digital world looks like, is now _way worse_…

This is ridiculous and hyperbolic on a few points, namely that Chrome's position is way worse than Microsoft's. Even if we ignore the fact that Chromium is open-source, that Chrome is heavily extensible, that Google has demonstrably shown commitment to developing the web in an open manner (eg WebRTC) - ignoring these and other facts, when Microsoft was 'in charge' of the Web (via IE's power) they locked IE down, killed their competition, and literally single-handedly stalled the progress of the Web.

The fact that you say IE at it's peak was worse than Chrome shows incredible ignorance on the matter.

Your anecdote about your friends reminds me of this odd joke from school

There's a senior citizen driving on the highway. His wife calls him on his cell phone and in a worried voice says, Herman, be careful! I just heard on the radio that there is a madman driving the wrong way on Route 280! Herman says, I know, but there isn't just one, there are hundreds!

Re: Firefox 90

#294

Post by Teever »

simondotau wrote: post #286
int_19h wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vivaldi.

That's still Chromium. I care more about avoiding a browser monoculture than I care about dick-measuring the corporate ethics of the three remaining companies which actually maintain actual browser engines. People might hate Safari but with Firefox slowly retreating into obscurity, Safari looks to be the final vanguard against a total Chromium monoculture. Yet many on HN absolutely abhor Safari because it doesn't cur…

Which platforms is Safari available for?

Re: Firefox 90

#295

Post by fleddr »

dannyw wrote: post #271
fleddr wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with most of what you said, but want to add some nuance to some statements. The IE comparison in dominance would be accurate, but it's worthwhile to point out that Google aggressively pushes web tech forward, whilst IE largely stagnated it. I think that's a meaningful difference, at least to developers. And it's not just a passing note either. Firefox' once strong position was made possible by the gap left behi…

You are right that Google is aggressively pushing the web forward, but it's debatable whether it's a good thing; if you look at recent initiatives like FLoC, Web Packaging and Manifest v3.

Depends on the individual feature/standard. I'd say the vast majority of their work is not controversial or extremely beneficial to just Google, minus a minority of exceptions like the ones you mentioned.

Re: Firefox 90

#296

Post by fleddr »

claviska wrote: post #276
fleddr wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with most of what you said, but want to add some nuance to some statements. The IE comparison in dominance would be accurate, but it's worthwhile to point out that Google aggressively pushes web tech forward, whilst IE largely stagnated it. I think that's a meaningful difference, at least to developers. And it's not just a passing note either. Firefox' once strong position was made possible by the gap left behi…

IE pushed the web forward initially. It was only after it won that it stagnated. As a developer, this is my biggest fear for Chromium.

I honestly don't fear that. Times are different.

Google wants the web to succeed, whereas Microsoft saw it as a threat. In addition, in the case of stagnation it would be relatively easy for a Chromium clone to fill the gap.

Re: Firefox 90

#297

Post by drawfloat »

joelthelion wrote: post #174
fleddr wrote: post #160

I noticed in the comments below how somebody mentioning Firefox's limited market share was heavily downvoted. I'm a Firefox user since forever, and will keep using it. I also want Mozilla to win, and strongly empathize with their engineers whom are trying to make the best of it. That said, I think the reality check should not be avoided. There is no good in do-good software without reach. Based on statcounter, Firefo…

As a side note, I don't understand why nobody uses Firefox on Android. It's an excellent browser, has ublock which is fairly rare on mobile. Why not use it?

I did until they broke all addons without warning a year or two ago. Completely unacceptable in a consumer app.

Re: Firefox 90

#298

Post by simondotau »

Teever wrote: post #294
simondotau wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still Chromium. I care more about avoiding a browser monoculture than I care about dick-measuring the corporate ethics of the three remaining companies which actually maintain actual browser engines. People might hate Safari but with Firefox slowly retreating into obscurity, Safari looks to be the final vanguard against a total Chromium monoculture. Yet many on HN absolutely abhor Safari because it doesn't cur…

Which platforms is Safari available for?

Platform availability isn't the operative metric when concerned about browser monoculture. The only metric of concern is browser market share. Safari represents approximately 20 percent of browsers.

Re: Firefox 90

#299

Post by fleddr »

simondotau wrote: post #290
fleddr wrote: post #160

I noticed in the comments below how somebody mentioning Firefox's limited market share was heavily downvoted. I'm a Firefox user since forever, and will keep using it. I also want Mozilla to win, and strongly empathize with their engineers whom are trying to make the best of it. That said, I think the reality check should not be avoided. There is no good in do-good software without reach. Based on statcounter, Firefo…

> Effectively Apple, an enemy of the open web, is our only savior against a full Chromium monopoly. Apple actively sabotaging and blocking the progress of the web, is our "hope". Caution: the following is a controversial opinion. You could see it another way—which is that Google, through Chrome, is trying to define what "progress" is by unilaterally pushing new web features into Chromium as quickly as they can. If "p…

This assumes that Google is actively pushing improvements to the web that are largely useless or solely beneficial to Google itself.

I believe that to be far from the truth, minus a handful of exceptions. I believe a better and more capable web is the only still "open" platform developers have if they don't want to submit to app stores.

You could of course support the idea of a more conservative pace, as dictated by Apple. I don't buy that. For that they need to be a stand-up citizen on the web. They are not. Apple doesn't document things, has no working feedback loop, actively hampers or obscures things important to the web.

Re: Firefox 90

#300

Post by trompetenaccoun »

smhost wrote: post #277
ergot_vacation wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general mass of humanity never does things because they're "right": Ethical, Forward-Thinking, Better For Society etc. They do them because they're easy. To the extent that wide social change ever happens, it only happens because the path of least resistance shifted from one thing to another. If you despair for the actions of the masses, never try to reason with them. Skip straight to assembling a good marketing…

> They do them because they're easy If you want to see a counterpoint to this, watch Goebbels' Total War speech. You can absolutely mobilize a great mass of people by promising them pain and hardship. Similar idea with JFK's moonshot speech.

The Nazis didn't promise pain, they promised a better world and told people they'd have to be prepared to go through pain and suffering to reach that goal. They also claimed the war was forced on them, that they had no choice. The speech was basically asking the people if they were going to bend the knee or stand up and fight to the last man. It was the Nazi version of the Braveheart speech, whatever we may think of that.
Post reply on HN