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

311–320 of 351 posts

Re: Firefox 90

#311

Post by bennysomething »

grumpyprole wrote: post #154
bennysomething wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is big tech "stifling everything". Big tech has provided the amazing hardware advances over the last few decades. Amazon Google and Microsoft provide amazing platforms that make it way easier for anyone to boostrap a scalable business. I no longer use Chrome, I just prefer Firefox but at the very least chrome gave browsers the kick up the back side they needed, mainly through V8 giving us JavaScript that runs fas…

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.

Those things where invented with public money yes. But Moore's law wouldn't have been a thing without profit incentive.

Re: Firefox 90

#312

Post by account42 »

scrollaway wrote: post #37
ducktective wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously not as much as HTTP(s) but still there are FTP links which show up after a google search from time to time...I guess now I have to context switch to the file explorer...Thunar is OK but does Windows Explorer even support FTP?

There are more mailto: links on the web than ftp: ones, and yet most browsers don't natively do email. Firefox didnt remove the protocol from existence. They just removed a feature nobody uses, which is better handled outside the browser.

FTP and HTTP are both about transfering files, SMTP is a very different use case.

Re: Firefox 90

#313

Post by raxxorrax »

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_…

> Chromium scrolls 5% better on my machine so who cares about Firefox

For the longest time this was actually the other way around. Firefox decoupled rendering from scrolling, which made it a far better option in many cases (there are some disadvantages, but FF just was further from the technical side).

Chrome cannot render nice pictures. It neglects quality for speed. I think it still does. Isn't visible in every image and you can disable this with tuned CSS tricks, but the issue remains.

But of course you are correct that all this is completely secondary...

Any serious developer that doesn't at least appreciate freedom and open source is an idiot in my opinion. Please excuse my strong language.

Re: Firefox 90

#314

Post by cassianoleal »

wisniewskit wrote: post #186
cassianoleal wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This lets it detect when sites try to open the popup-based authenticaion flow, unload the stand-in script, load the real one, and continue the login flow. I guess how it detects the "when sites try to open the popup-based authenticaion flow" is the attack vector. If it's Javascript, it's likely to be easily exploitable. If it's in the browser's chrome I suppose it would take a malicious add-on or similar device.

Lead dev here. Yes, this is a give-and-take that probably will never be "perfect" for everyone. Right now a site could disingenuously call the relevant Facebook SDK API to unblock the Facebook resources listed here, and only on that site: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/extensi... I'm not too sure why that would be worthwhile as an attack, though. If you have anything in mind that would make it s…

Thanks for your response! Also thanks very much for your efforts! I've been using Firefox exclusively for quite some time, and it's by far the best browser for me. The focus on privacy and user protections (like this one) has also already helped me convince a few people to switch over.

I think the main attack vector I'd be worried about is if the SDK itself implemented a way around this protection, rendering it relatively useless. If that's not a feasible exploit, then I wouldn't be overly worried about as it would take effort on each website maintainer to implement and maintain the exploit.

The "real popup" detection sounds like a great addition if it works well!

Re: Firefox 90

#315

Post by trompetenaccoun »

smhost wrote: post #310
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, not exactly. The ideological trick is to package pain and hardship and to sell it as something wonderful. It's not really even about promising good things in the future. That only works for part of the population (essentially the marshmallow experiment). What Goebbels did is much more immediate. If you identify with Goebbels, then the hardship itself registers as something that's good, and not merely as a promi…

Not sure I understand what you mean. It's a motivational speech like many others. Goebbels was a brilliant public speaker, no doubt. But he wasn't a social wizard who cast an evil spell on the German population, the way people who like to mysticize Nazism often portray him as. Such speakers still exist today, the same old populism still works great. The dangerous part about fascism is exactly that it wasn't a one off terrible mishap, it's a regular occurrence. The Nazis most certainly made all kinds of positive promises, they were the whole reason they got elected. They promised to fix the economy, fight unemployment, fight back against the unjust Versailles Treaty, support families, bring political stability and make other countries respect Germany again, etc... Just look at their campaigns and posters.

Re: Firefox 90

#316

Post by scrollaway »

account42 wrote: post #312
scrollaway wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more mailto: links on the web than ftp: ones, and yet most browsers don't natively do email. Firefox didnt remove the protocol from existence. They just removed a feature nobody uses, which is better handled outside the browser.

FTP and HTTP are both about transfering files, SMTP is a very different use case.

Use your imagination. And this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_network_protocols

Re: Firefox 90

#317

Post by smhost »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #315
smhost wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not exactly. The ideological trick is to package pain and hardship and to sell it as something wonderful. It's not really even about promising good things in the future. That only works for part of the population (essentially the marshmallow experiment). What Goebbels did is much more immediate. If you identify with Goebbels, then the hardship itself registers as something that's good, and not merely as a promi…

Not sure I understand what you mean. It's a motivational speech like many others. Goebbels was a brilliant public speaker, no doubt. But he wasn't a social wizard who cast an evil spell on the German population, the way people who like to mysticize Nazism often portray him as. Such speakers still exist today, the same old populism still works great. The dangerous part about fascism is exactly that it wasn't a one off…

> They promised to fix the economy, fight unemployment, fight back against the unjust Versailles Treaty, support families, bring political stability and make other countries respect Germany again, etc.

You're missing one component, which is that the Nazis took all of these (more or less) legitimate grievances and redirected them into the figure of the Jew. You're right in that this wasn't a result of some supernatural ability of Hitler and Goebbels, and that's the whole point. There doesn't need to be. I'm sure individual Nazis had similar thoughts as you do (this is just another motivational speech, these are decent campaign promises, etc). The precondition to repeating Nazi ideology is already present in normal psychology.

Re: Firefox 90

#318

Post by raxxorrax »

astrange wrote: post #163
laurent92 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bothered with the values of open source and how this pertains to democracy and human values It does, but Mozilla is not representative of those values to my opinion. They represent the values on the left of humanism, but are opposed to right values, and therefore it doesn’t embody neutrality or democracy. They go as far as thinking everyone should share their opinion on gay marriage, and a private donation in that…

There's no reason to dig up every opinion on Earth just so you can maintain neutrality between all of them. Brendan Eich is surprisingly un-cancelled for a guy who thinks his employees shouldn't be able to visit their spouses dying in hospitals[1]. He's literally still around. [1] Which happened a lot during the AIDS pandemic and was essentially the purpose of the gay marriage campaign. It was actually relatively cul…

I doubt any of this is true. If that was the reason, why not demonstrate for the right to visit?

It is often a negative stereotype that gay people want to live in communes.

> Brendan Eich is surprisingly un-cancelled

No, he was cancelled by Mozilla for something that has nothing to do with his work. The company lost a lot of goodwill because of that. Liberals too btw. If you preach tolerance and pull stuff like this, your statements won't have much weight further on.

Re: Firefox 90

#319

Post by trompetenaccoun »

smhost wrote: post #317
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I understand what you mean. It's a motivational speech like many others. Goebbels was a brilliant public speaker, no doubt. But he wasn't a social wizard who cast an evil spell on the German population, the way people who like to mysticize Nazism often portray him as. Such speakers still exist today, the same old populism still works great. The dangerous part about fascism is exactly that it wasn't a one off…

> They promised to fix the economy, fight unemployment, fight back against the unjust Versailles Treaty, support families, bring political stability and make other countries respect Germany again, etc. You're missing one component, which is that the Nazis took all of these (more or less) legitimate grievances and redirected them into the figure of the Jew. You're right in that this wasn't a result of some supernatura…

You're just rephrasing what I wrote now, so I guess we agree. Will you admit your original point was misinformed then? We can look at actual Nazi election posters if you like, they never told the people it's going to be suffering and hell, obviously. They made tons of grand promises and that's how they got to power. Denying this fact is dangerous, if we don't understand how totalitarian regimes come about, history is bound to repeat itself.

Re: Firefox 90

#320

Post by smhost »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #319
smhost wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They promised to fix the economy, fight unemployment, fight back against the unjust Versailles Treaty, support families, bring political stability and make other countries respect Germany again, etc. You're missing one component, which is that the Nazis took all of these (more or less) legitimate grievances and redirected them into the figure of the Jew. You're right in that this wasn't a result of some supernatura…

You're just rephrasing what I wrote now, so I guess we agree. Will you admit your original point was misinformed then? We can look at actual Nazi election posters if you like, they never told the people it's going to be suffering and hell, obviously. They made tons of grand promises and that's how they got to power. Denying this fact is dangerous, if we don't understand how totalitarian regimes come about, history is…

What? No. I specifically referred to the Total War speech, not to election posters. You seem fixated on making your own point unrelated to what I was saying.
Post reply on HN