91–100 of 251 posts
Extensions are nice to have, but pointless as long as FF for Android doesn't render most pages correctly (HN, for example).
You seen this pattern again and again in Firefox news threads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Firefox paradox: People b***h about Firefox's (lack of) market share, Mozilla doing stupid things (fair criticism), Firefox not having X (extension support on Mobile, moving from legacy extensions to standard manifest format) Then people will still bring up this baggage even when something good happens, will refuse to move away from the browser monoculture/monopoly, s**t on Firefox devs FFS, something good happen…
Former Firefox dev for both desktop and Android here: I can definitely confirm that being constantly shit on wore me down a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Few of them prevents me from switching to Firefox (I assume you meant "a few"). Which ones, by curiosity?
The biggest blocker for me is font kerning on canvas elements being broken. That causes Google Docs to render terribly which makes it practically unusable. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1445596
Another one is favicons not being stored/synced across browsers. This causes me to have a bookmark toolbar with entirely the same default icon without any text. (I prefer them as icons, fits more stuff there). I don't have this problem with Chromium based browsers. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=428378
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I used to work on this stuff) It was more complicated than that. Yes, GeckoView needed a separate WebExtension implementation, but that work was pretty much at parity with Fennec (the previous Firefox for Android that supported more extensions) when I left in 2021. It was a product management decision that held off on more complete WebExtension parity with desktop, as well as any artificial limits as to which extens…
Can you elaborate on the product management motivations? It seems to me projects like Iceraven demonstrated years ago that a great many extensions were usable without any changes. Why not just slap a "here there be dragons" warning on untested extensions and let users have at it? To be clear, I'm not asking you to justify decisions you didn't make, just to provide some visibility into the process if you can. Mozilla…
- Google pays Mozilla more than 400m per year.
- Its in Google's interests to not have good Firefox add-ons. (For both Ads and Chrome's market share).
Google's negotiator could easily added some incentive for Mozilla's management to set the focus somewhere else.
In fact, given what Google's team is likely earning, they wouldn't be doing a good job if Firefox's mobile strategy wasn't discussed before signing such deals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Firefox paradox: People b***h about Firefox's (lack of) market share, Mozilla doing stupid things (fair criticism), Firefox not having X (extension support on Mobile, moving from legacy extensions to standard manifest format) Then people will still bring up this baggage even when something good happens, will refuse to move away from the browser monoculture/monopoly, s**t on Firefox devs FFS, something good happen…
> s*t on Firefox devs The nerd rage is targeted at Mozilla's dishonest and incompetent managers, no? The actual dev work is top notch.
Even if it is, that kind of language doesn't help. These are all people you're talking about, trying their best to do a job they care about. Nothing gets better by your being a jerk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mine states 120.0.6099.26, which was released a month ago, https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2023/11/chrome-beta-fo...
Your user agent string or the actual browser code? The former is notoriously just set to whatever makes websites happy. An easy way to test is see if a current feature actually works as expected e.g. https://jsfiddle.net/fxc9a8uc/1 "test1" should be green at the top right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That article actually shows that Mozilla spends most on software development. It does have a lot of administrative overhead that it could do without, instead of laying off engineers, like they did. But the article itself is trash, due to complaining of $892,000 worth of expenses that seem dubious, in an organization that makes 500 million per year, which paints a certain kind of picture that's disingenuous.
If they spend most of that $200 million on Firefox annually and we have abhorrent text rendering on canvas elements for YEARS, something's seriously broken there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on the product management motivations? It seems to me projects like Iceraven demonstrated years ago that a great many extensions were usable without any changes. Why not just slap a "here there be dragons" warning on untested extensions and let users have at it? To be clear, I'm not asking you to justify decisions you didn't make, just to provide some visibility into the process if you can. Mozilla…
This is speculation based only on press releases but: - Google pays Mozilla more than 400m per year. - Its in Google's interests to not have good Firefox add-ons. (For both Ads and Chrome's market share). Google's negotiator could easily added some incentive for Mozilla's management to set the focus somewhere else. In fact, given what Google's team is likely earning, they wouldn't be doing a good job if Firefox's mob…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can Kagi's Orion browser support extensions on iOS? I recently switched from Firefox because lack of uBO caused huge beef for me and have zero regrets. I'm not paying for Kagi's search service (happy enough with DDG for the majority of my searches), but I can really appreciate their business model and mission (they seem genuine afaict).
WebExtensions are (or at least can be) ultimately just a weird type of HTML+JS app, as far as I understand, so I suspect it's possible to run that in one WebView context on iOS and bridge the required APIs between the extension and browser context using content scripts.