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

In 2024, please switch to Firefox

roytanck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 850 posts

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#551

Post by pessimizer »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #334
wg0 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's another Lala land of obliviousness. Browser is a complex piece of software that needs effort. Users are not paying for it and those who will pay for itthen will probably require access to those users, for sure. Firefox is a dwindling piece of software and maybe they themselves should take some responsibility of where it is heading today. User adoption is merit driven and not mission or ideology driven. EDIT: T…

I want to pay for Firefox. I do not want to contribute to the Mozilla CEO's outrageous US$7M compensation package. How do I do that?

If you wait a year, you can instead contribute to the next $8.5M+ compensation package. It will be announced at the same time Mozilla announces that they're shutting down the browser and committing to becoming an AI cryptocurrency.

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#552

Post by infinityplus1 »

TheCleric wrote: post #158
cle wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple definitely makes a lot of money from advertising...probably more than they make from selling Macs (based on 2022 results). Also I think this quote might be technically right, but Mozilla's revenue is almost entirely paid from advertising companies who pay royalties to have their search engines by default in Firefox. So they are very much coupled to the dynamics of the ads industry.

Not doubting you, but do you have a source for that? Best I could find was their last quarterly earnings report which does have “Services” ahead of everything but iPhone, but I would imagine includes some big money makers like AppleCare.

Apple gets 36% of Google's advertising revenue from Safari's default search. So Apple is earning from Google's advertisements.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/google-witness-a...

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#553

Post by latexr »

redcobra762 wrote: post #428
latexr wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t used the official YouTube app, but I seriously doubt it’s ad-free and that it lets you download videos.

It does both, actually!

Are you saying that, by default and without any account, the official YouTube iOS app does not display ads? Then why are there so many alternative frontends which have ad blocking as a feature and Reddit is littered with threads asking how to block ads in the app?

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#554

Post by gitaarik »

DrBazza wrote: post #277
jcalvinowens wrote: post #5

I switched back to firefox last year and haven't looked back. I still use chrome on another laptop sometimes, the performance difference from my human perspective is literally zero. These days, it's much more common for me to encounter a website that works in firefox but not chrome than the other way around. I actually switched for good when I had to use firefox to file my taxes, because the IRS free self-file site w…

Chrome is the new IE6

We need an updated version of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sKppwrLBY8

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#555

Post by pivo »

mvdtnz wrote: post #506
pivo wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> God damn is it noisy What is this noise you're referring to? I'm 90% Firefox and 10% Safari and I don't understand this comment.

I know what he's talking about. Firefox has constant nag screens. I just restarted Firefox and got two separate nags[1]. I am certain that within the next week it will nag me for at least one more thing. Maybe it'll want me to try Pocket, or sign in with a Mozilla account, or set up sync, or the absolute worst offender - when I launch the browser it will say "heyyyy I gotta update and I treat this like it's 1998 so y…

Ok, but obviously in this case you can check the "Don't show me this message again" checkbox and, like me, you'll have had to endure the burden of responding to this nag just once in years of using Firefox.

I may be forgetting about nags that don't allow themselves to be disabled, but if so, they're infrequent enough that they seem insignificant and obviously non-memorable.

Edit: I should add, when I had to have Chrome installed I really didn't like the fact that it updated itself automatically via a daemon process. I don't think having a constantly running background process for a browser, especially one from a giant advertising company, is a good alternative.

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#557

Post by atrettel »

plugin-baby wrote: post #418
atrettel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One UI feature that I love that Firefox lets you change is the scrollbars. I forget the precise settings, but I set them up so that they are always present and always big enough for me to see how far down a page I am (yes, like I'm using Windows 95!). That might only be something that matters to a few people, but the fact that it is customizable to that level is one of Firefox's greatest strengths.

This sounds great, but for web developers I feel it’s a risky change if you want to see your sites as your users do.

You raise a good point. Fortunately, I'm not a web developer but I will keep your point in mind in case I do any web development later.

From a web development standpoint, the scrollbars do seem to be an ignored feature for a lot of web pages. Adding scrollbars actually fixes a lot of issues with some sites. For example, some sites often have a frame inside of another frame, and this reveals the scrollbars for both frames. If I were to use my mouse wheel, I might scroll down inner frame or the outer frame, and I wouldn't know which one would be activated until I try, but with the scrollbars on, I always know which one is which. This was a surprise benefit to this change.

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#558

Post by tslocum »

sp332 wrote: post #512
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to pay for Firefox. I do not want to contribute to the Mozilla CEO's outrageous US$7M compensation package. How do I do that?

There’s no way to do either. The Mozilla Corporation doesn’t take donations. (The Mozilla Foundation doesn’t make Firefox.)

There's no way to do both simultaneously. You can, however, donate to The Mozilla Corporation and help pay their CEO's salary.[0] It won't help Firefox one iota, but you can do it.

  0. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990-ty22-public-disclosure.pdf

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#559

Post by croes »

01nate wrote: post #460
krastanov wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox out of the box indeed does not cause broken websites. However, the demographic of this forum probably will use Firefox with "Multi-Account Containers", "Temporary Containers", "uBlock Origin", and a few more. These are amazing for privacy and productivity, but will occasionally cause broken websites. Source: I am a Firefox-first user who occasionally uses plugin-less Chrome because the aforementioned plugins…

I have had sites that are definitely broken in Firefox even after a stock install with every last toggle/extension/script blocker turned off. It's fairly rare, but there are a slowly growing list of sites that don't behave properly under Firefox but work in Chromium.

The question is if the problem is Firefox or the webpage.

Remember when Google killed the Edge render engine per YouTube problems?

Re: In 2024, please switch to Firefox

#560

Post by charcircuit »

01nate wrote: post #473
charcircuit wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manifest v3 does not ban adblockers, nor does the Chrome web store

It doesn't ban a blockers outright but does severely hamper them. It severely limits how many filters that can exist within the plugin, and also prevents plugins from updating block lists themselves and forces those updated lists to go through the plugin store. Both of those will seriously hamper a more advanced adblock like UBlock Origin

>It severely limits how many filters that can exist within the plugin

The limits are 30,000 static rules and 30,000 dynamic rules. Running tens of thousands of regexs for each request can lead to a performance impact. Allowing for even higher limits may result in people having a worse experience from the browser becoming slower. The API was designed such that these limits can be increased in the future as available computation and user needs change over time. Getting extension developers to design their extensions in a way where they have to think about not slowing down the browser too much I think is a good thing and I would not call these current limits severe.

>also prevents plugins from updating block lists themselves

declarativeNetRequest lets rules be added and removed dynamically by the extension.

>forces those updated lists to go through the plugin store

The Chrome team has said that configuration can be updated outside of a store update. What the Chrome web store does not want are extensions that download and run code. This policy does not related to mv3.

Post reply on HN