Be sure to use "Report broken site" in the main menu on that handful of sites. Often there are things folks can do to fix it for you, if many people are running into it - but only if it's known. More info: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1de7bu1/were_the_f...
I was confused by "main menu" so I took a look and it is in the Help menu, for those wondering (I'm on Mac). I didn't know this existed but will totally use it now! Thanks!
Ah sorry, yes, on Mac you have a full menu bar instead of the single menu button. Thanks for clarifying!
As a developer, the one feature I really love in Chrome is PWAs. But Firefox abandoned PWA support years ago, and seems to have no appetite for adding PWAs back[1]. Maybe I'll just have to split my usage across PWAs in Chrome (since I trust those apps/websites anyway) and Firefox for general browsing. [1] https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/bring-back-pwa-progress...
They seem on bringing it back one way or another [1] and there is also a workaround utility [2]. [1] https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/how-can-firefox-c... [2] https://pwasforfirefox.filips.si/
Thanks for sharing, I wasn't aware of that blog post. That said, their approach sounds kind of disheartening. I love being able to use extensions within my PWAs (primarily uBlock Origin, obviously), and some Android Chrome forks (Kiwi/Mises) let me do this, while still letting me feel like I'm in a dedicated app (i.e. no browser chrome at all). The firefox team really seem to stress here that they want to keep the chrome around the app (albeit different), which really feels like it goes against the grain of what I expect a PWA to be in the first place (a chromeless website).
This is the death of the hacker. We have allowed new heights of power and unchecked control decide they know better than us. We are no longer allowed or trusted to make choices in our best interests. Many practice apologetics for why this is necessary, pointing to Apple and Mozilla, as if that doesn’t make this change any less devastating. It was a great run. The silver lining is it can be the birth of a new generati…
> We are no longer allowed or trusted to make choices in our best interests. Ironically (or not) this is the Apple side of the Android/iOS debate. And most people are happier with iOS. (And use Macs over Linux, FWIW.) [I probably shouldn't mention that I personally think adblockers are unethical :) ]
> [I probably shouldn't mention that I personally think adblockers are unethical :) ]
The difference isn’t just in the network calls, it’s the relinquishing of the blocking to Chrome itself. The Lite extension is essentially reduced to just providing a blocklist to Chrome, and hopes that Chrome will honor the blocklist. Google is surgically trying to dismantle adblocking, first by removing all the tools from the users under the guise of “it’s dangerous”, and then shutting it down by rendering them so…
A blocklist with a limited size. I believe its 50 rules it's also trivial for anti-adblockers to dynamically try alternative domains till they find one that isn't blocked.
50 lists, 330 thousand rules in total; not 50 rules
> We are no longer allowed or trusted to make choices in our best interests. Ironically (or not) this is the Apple side of the Android/iOS debate. And most people are happier with iOS. (And use Macs over Linux, FWIW.) [I probably shouldn't mention that I personally think adblockers are unethical :) ]
> [I probably shouldn't mention that I personally think adblockers are unethical :) ] Okay, I’ll bite. How are adblockers unethical?
Because websites make their money from ads.
There is an implicit agreement that using those websites (for free) means you watch ads. I think: if you don't agree with that, then you shouldn't go to those sites.
We complain about "enshitification" -- but then we take away all potential sources of revenue (and refuse to pay). So the only companies that can provide "free" services are ones that are already monetizing you in other ways.
> We are no longer allowed or trusted to make choices in our best interests. Ironically (or not) this is the Apple side of the Android/iOS debate. And most people are happier with iOS. (And use Macs over Linux, FWIW.) [I probably shouldn't mention that I personally think adblockers are unethical :) ]
> And most people are happier with iOS. Source? > And use Macs over Linux, FWIW. This could be explained by marketing. > I personally think adblockers are unethical Do you think ads are ethical? For a relevant example, how about an Apple ad that successfully uses emotion to convince you to buy a Mac instead of a Linux computer that would better suit your needs at a better price hypothetically?
> Do you think ads are ethical?
Generally, yes. Ads are an important function of commerce, tbh.
False ads, of course, are not ethical. But we do have laws in that area (not that people don't break them.)
I hear so many people IRL complaining about this. I tell them to switch to firefox, that the adblockers still work there, and they still won't switch to it because they are "used to chrome". I really feel like google won this battle. People will through a lot of abuse just to maintain their habits.
I've been telling my IRL non-technical friends to use Brave. By far the easiest migration path, literally is Chrome, but with with a good built-in ad blocker and uBlock Origin. I've long since understood that any browser that I would use should be treated as an anti-recommendation for normal folks. I can already see the "but the crypto thing" and yeah, I don't love it but it's so out of the way that I don't even know…
Running uBO and Shields at the same time isn't a good idea, generally speaking. Pick one and go with it.
Your argument is that Google couldn't possibly have written their own web engine and browser at a time when Firefox and IE were the alternative options?
I'm simply saying that they didn't, and thus they did have to "open" it, or rather keep it "open".
I would argue they didn't have to "open" it at all, they could have just built up from scratch.
However they chose to do it in the open, side benefit they also got to use a ton of preexisting code.
I wouldn't be surprised if the people that did care about that internally at Google either used something like Firefox or had their private build that can run uBlock or similar ;)
In 2011, when I worked at Google (on ads, not on Chrome), I did use Firefox as my main browser. But back then, there was much less need for an ad blocker. I still remember asking my manager whether it was OK to click an ad (from a VPS provider) while browsing from the corporate desktop.
https://www.reddit.com/r/windows/comments/w9fd1g/new_compute... Must say it's really hard to find who might have paid for a bundled installer. Filezilla I remember had a lot of those and some forum threads will mention a specific "offer" they got, but there's no listing anywhere, and it's not in the source code history because they were (so I just read) dynamically fetched from advertisement servers upon launching th…
GP said: > Google bundled invisible Chrome installers in other software that would not only make its browser the default, but also invisibly steal IE clicks. An anecdote from someone who "bought a second hand laptop off ebay" and found Chrome preinstalled isn't relevant.
They did a fresh Windows install though, that wouldn't normally keep any software they previously had on there, but yes it's the best reference I could find. Feel free to find a better source yourself, I've tried
Must say I read over the bit about invisibly stealing IE clicks. That's obviously nonsense, Chrome was never malware