431–440 of 1001 posts
I wish MIcrosoft would have worked off Firefox for the new Edge instead of Chrome. Just doesn't make sense why they would feed into a direct competitor. Bagging Edge off Firefox would have made it a real option for me as well as creating an opportunity now with all the ad blocking stuff going down...
I switched a couple of months ago because Chrome is just a bloated piece of garbage. One of my favorite features in Firefox is containers, which I used to have different users for in Chrome. Maybe Chrome has something similar now but it's one of the things I liked when I switched over. Haven't had any issues so far, glad I did
I hope Mozilla won't deprecate those..
Google will keep locking down Chrome and using corporate talk to hand wave it away, only recourse is to leave. First it’s “sign in” with obtuse ways to turn it off. Then block Adblocking, once again with obtuse ways to disable... the end goal is pretty obvious, get the majority of Chrome users to turn on ads and tie their real names to their Chrome browser. Of course let “power users” (who’ll turn that crap off anywa…
I'd honestly be okay with using Vivaldi 99% of the time and then switching over to Chrome only to watch Netflix and the like. And honestly, when I watch Netflix, it's usually in my Surface, in which case I'll use the app.
I don't understand why Mac users use Chrome. Safari seems to be out of fashion: people just assume that it should not be used for some reason, even though it is actually a great browser. I use Safari for both my own browsing and for development (a fairly large ClojureScript application), and it is by far the best browser on the platform by all measures (speed first and foremost). The only place where Safari falls sho…
Google will keep locking down Chrome and using corporate talk to hand wave it away, only recourse is to leave. First it’s “sign in” with obtuse ways to turn it off. Then block Adblocking, once again with obtuse ways to disable... the end goal is pretty obvious, get the majority of Chrome users to turn on ads and tie their real names to their Chrome browser. Of course let “power users” (who’ll turn that crap off anywa…
There was a time when browsers did not have built-in media players. Seems like ffmpeg libraries, developed outside of the web browser, support nearly all video formats a user could encounter on the internet. Also, the part of the statement that reads "your new browser won't work with most internet video" is intriguing. Can we define "most internet video" as Amazon Video, BBC, Hulu, Netflix and Spotify? (Widevine user…
Maybe you could in terms of unique videos, but in terms of the volume of watched video, not at all. Netflix itself is responsible for something in the range of 15% of the worlds bandwidth usage.
Either way, it not going to win an end users to have something like that.
I switched a couple of months ago because Chrome is just a bloated piece of garbage. One of my favorite features in Firefox is containers, which I used to have different users for in Chrome. Maybe Chrome has something similar now but it's one of the things I liked when I switched over. Haven't had any issues so far, glad I did
I love Firefox's containers, but AFAIK you can't sync your settings. Makes reinstalling a major pain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A) Want to use unsigned addons to play around, or tweak your existing ones[1]? Nope, even if you allow them in about:config, you can't; you have to use a special development version and update it separately. Signatures were mandated for add-ons because there was a plague of malware (or near-malware, such as third party anti-virus software) silently installing add-ons that broke Firefox in various ways. If the end-u…
No, there wasn't. No malware was being spread en masse this way. It was an entirely fictitious threat, as it would have required convincing the user to enter a confusing part of the app (about:config) and correctly change a setting. I can accept that there might have been a malware problem when signatures weren't the default requirement, but that's not the change I'm talking about, where they ignore a user's explicit…
Additionally, keep in mind that when the signature requirement was added there were still XUL/XPCOM extensions which could hook the browser much deeper than Chrome-style extensions and wreak much more havok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bite, tell me (I already know they were acquired by Microsoft)....?
Do you think that Microsoft is just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? And that Open Source, but especially Libre Software, is going to be compatible with whatever they have in mind ?
That's just circular reasoning, you've going to have to provide some concrete argument.
Google will keep locking down Chrome and using corporate talk to hand wave it away, only recourse is to leave. First it’s “sign in” with obtuse ways to turn it off. Then block Adblocking, once again with obtuse ways to disable... the end goal is pretty obvious, get the majority of Chrome users to turn on ads and tie their real names to their Chrome browser. Of course let “power users” (who’ll turn that crap off anywa…
There was a time when browsers did not have built-in media players. Seems like ffmpeg libraries, developed outside of the web browser, support nearly all video formats a user could encounter on the internet. Also, the part of the statement that reads "your new browser won't work with most internet video" is intriguing. Can we define "most internet video" as Amazon Video, BBC, Hulu, Netflix and Spotify? (Widevine user…
Google will keep locking down Chrome and using corporate talk to hand wave it away, only recourse is to leave. First it’s “sign in” with obtuse ways to turn it off. Then block Adblocking, once again with obtuse ways to disable... the end goal is pretty obvious, get the majority of Chrome users to turn on ads and tie their real names to their Chrome browser. Of course let “power users” (who’ll turn that crap off anywa…
Widevine works with Firefox. Why couldn't it with Chromium?