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

Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

pulsebrowser.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#51

Post by BiteCode_dev »

chironjit wrote: post #45

Hey, just wanted to say great work. I'm excited for innovation of a non-chrome engine and am gonna give it a try. My 2 biggest beef with Firefox is website compatibility and dead tabs. For item 1, certain sites don't work with Firefox when they do with Chrome. This can happen even in sites of industries that claim to want privacy / decentralisation / anti-monopoly. Some of these are government websites. Sometimes, we…

Don't ask a browser vendor to fix websites in 2022. We know that it's rarely a problem with the browser, and mostly devs that decided (or been told) to do a chrome only website.

We did it once with IE, don't fall in that trap again.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#52

Post by anuragvohraec »

trickypr wrote: post #6
account-5 wrote: post #2

I'm not sure what this is offering over normal Firefox other than not having to turn off telemetry, install ublock ( and the other mentioned add-ons), and making use of user.js myself? Also if you're making an issue of providing software with no telemetry then your website should probably not include cloud insights tech that: "collects web vitals from the actual devices your visitors are using".

Hi, I am a dev on Pulse Browser. I want to clarify our current development direction (I haven't significant updated the website recently). We have been moving further away from privacy and towards developing/iterating on features faster than Firefox is willing to, along with providing sane defaults. For example, we have been experimenting with a opera/vivaldi-like method of accessing Firefox's sidebar. Whilst you cou…

kudos, we do need new browsers. Appreciate you guys putting efforts. Hope you guys succeed in your endeavor.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#54

Post by BiteCode_dev »

trickypr wrote: post #26
csande17 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have been moving further away from privacy [...] I appreciate your honesty, but hearing this was enough for me to file your project into the "not touching with a ten-foot pole" bucket alongside the likes of Wave Browser.

I think you are miss interpreting me. I don't want to focus on privacy above all else. To do that well would compromise on the usability of the browser. For example, if I were to advertise it as "privacy focused", I would not feel comfortable unless I included strict anti-fingerprinting, which would break websites. It is a balancing act, and I won't be collecting or selling your data, but I won't be competing with Li…

Don't be turned off by people wanting everything to be perfect, to their taste, and right now.

Those people are very vocal on HN or on the Foss community, but they do not speak for most users anymore than I do.

What you are attempting is very interesting and a lot of work.

Even if it's not tor browser level of private, I'll be glad to give it a try. We desperatly need more diversity in the browser space.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#55

Post by BiteCode_dev »

jacooper wrote: post #46

I personay think that even though Google controls chromium, its simple the best web engine out there. Instead of working on an objectively worse engine, try to influence chromium without google, or maybe even create a complete fork.

A monoculture is fragile and will be prone to abuses.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#56

Post by sys42590 »

itake wrote: post #23

How fast does this get updated when Mozilla releases a 0day patch?

That's a very good question.

Lack of automated and timely updates made me uninstall LibreWolf pretty quickly from my Windows boxes.

I won't touch this fork if its more hassle to keep secure than vanilla Firefox.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#57

Post by BiteCode_dev »

Great news!

Wish you well. Do you have a donation link?

Since everyone is sharing their xmas list, here is mind:

- containers builtin and improved

- torrent download built in

- forget site built in

- tab group buit in

- private tab instead of private window, like in portable ff

- restore form built in

- profile switcher built in

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#58

Post by kevingadd »

chironjit wrote: post #45

Hey, just wanted to say great work. I'm excited for innovation of a non-chrome engine and am gonna give it a try. My 2 biggest beef with Firefox is website compatibility and dead tabs. For item 1, certain sites don't work with Firefox when they do with Chrome. This can happen even in sites of industries that claim to want privacy / decentralisation / anti-monopoly. Some of these are government websites. Sometimes, we…

#2 sounds like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1772975 , maybe comment about your experience

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#59

Post by toastal »

Reasons LibreWolf (https://librewolf.net/) is more interesting:

• more mature • more installation options • hosted on an open-core forge, GitLab, instead of a proprietary, closed-source one, GitHub • open-source communications preferred, Matrix/Gitter, instead of proprietary, closed-source communications, Discord • website has a lot more information

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#60

Post by chrismorgan »

Tade0 wrote: post #32
brigandish wrote: post #28

Fix the terrible history page and I'll switch because it'll tell me that the dev team is prioritising the right things, existing, basic features over new, probably unwanted ones . For a laugh, check out this bug[1] for the history page, extant since Firefox 11!, that means deletion is incredibly slow and tiresome. What makes me laugh even more is that history is stored in a SQLite database, meaning that deletion shou…

This appears to be a case of something that I've known as "the BBBB problem" - should we optimise algorithms that will rarely be used in a way that makes computation time explode? I mean, who removes history entries by selecting thousands of them manually? Okay, this guy, but who else? I don't remember who named it like that, but the associated anecdote was about typing "BBBB" somewhere in Excel(I think it was the fu…

> I mean, who removes history entries by selecting thousands of them manually? Okay, this guy, but who else?

I’ve often done it to clear out useless repetitive history entries that are just clogging up results when typing in the address/search bar. Ideally it would simply not make entries for some kinds of redirects and I could define rules of URLs to exclude, but in the absence of that I might just go through once or twice a year and delete a few of the biggest repetitive patterns. And how slow it’s been for the last decade has been rather frustrating at times. I just tried deleting a couple of thousand (I use Nightly, where a fix apparently landed last week) and it took half a second, which is much more relaxing than the ten or twenty seconds of full-blocking CPU thrashing that it used to be.

Post reply on HN