[HN Gopher] I've started using Firefox and can never go back to ... ___________________________________________________________________ I've started using Firefox and can never go back to Chrome Author : p4bl0 Score : 868 points Date : 2022-07-17 13:37 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.techradar.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.techradar.com) | selfhoster69 wrote: | I feel like I'm in the minority here, but Edge has been | consistently better than every other browser I've tried. | | I have about 30 tabs open across 3 windows on my 10 yo. laptop, | that I upgraded to 8GB of RAM. If I try to open even 10 tabs in | Firefox, the laptop slows down to hell. | | Running a local speed test to my Linux server on MS Edge, I get | ~910Mb/s download (CPU maxes out) and ~980Mb/s upload. | | If I fire up Firefox and run this same test, I get ~260Mb/s | download/upload, with the CPU maxed out of course. | briHass wrote: | Edge is the way to go for Windows machines,especially if you | prefer the chromium engine. | | MS made lots of Windows specific optimizations, with a focus on | memory use. The other killer feature is 'secure mode' that | disables JS JIT, which is where most if the security issues | have come from in modern browsers. Plus, in this context, MS's | incentives align much closer to mine than one if the largest | advertising companies in the world. | encryptluks2 wrote: | I disagree. I have yet to see a browser try to enable so much | telemetry and features that track everything you do on the | web. There are like 30+ things unique to Edge that they push | on users. Even after turning them off, I've had Edge | magically turn them back on without my consent. Chrome isn't | perfect, but if you know what to disable it really isn't that | challenging to make it as privacy-friendly as Firefox... and | Firefox isn't the perfect angel here either. Chromium is even | better, especially on Linux to escape some of the "Google- | ification". I really do not see any difference between | Chromium and Firefox when it comes to default privacy | settings. Regardless, it is always best to go in and disable | them or use a policy file to do so. | thomascatt wrote: | I've used Edge for almost a full year, didn't notice any | difference from chrome, despite being complimented for better | windows optimization. Moved back to Chrome. | | It wasn't disappointing, but it's just that I didn't have a | reason to stay there. | binarymax wrote: | I don't intend to diminish the article itself, since yes ditching | chrome and Google is a win for personal privacy. | | But I can't ignore the irony of this article loading dozens of | trackers. Like, is the cognitive dissonance that bad in web | publishing? Do the teams writing the content not know about the | way the publisher presents the data? Is this just pure hypocrisy? | I'm at a loss. | z3t4 wrote: | It's corporate politics. The amount of tracking and data | collected is not decided by the engineers nor the content | creators. Most entrepreneurs think that the more data the | better and that it somehow can be monetized in the future - and | analyzed by "AI", but don't want to to be liable so they use | third parties to collect and store the data. | mikkergp wrote: | The primary goal of this article is clearly ad impressions, any | attempt to educate and inform on privacy is clearly secondary. | lolinder wrote: | The article encourages people to install uBlock. If it's | primarily designed to drive ads, that's some bad short-term | thinking. | dylan604 wrote: | An author doesn't get to choose what the website of the | publisher does. It's not like this is the author's personal | website that they have decided to put all of these trackers on | it. This is a voice crying from within the system about how bad | the system is. Is there a lot of cognitive dissonance in | understanding how web publishing works? | a2800276 wrote: | An author does get to choose which platform they publish on. | I'm really surprised by all the apologists here, the article | is clearly click bait trying to cram ads down your throat. | The real irony is that while the post is bearable to look at | in chrome it's near enough unreadable in Firefox. | dylan604 wrote: | Funny, I had no problem reading it in FF. Of course, I run | uMatrix, so my experience is probably better. | | Also, the author in this case is a staff writer for the | publication. The entire point of her being on staff is to | write content for that site. | haswell wrote: | > _An author does get to choose which platform they publish | on._ | | A climate scientist traveling to a conference to meet with | policy makers with a goal to increase awareness about a | particular issue might be forced to use a mode of | transportation that itself contributes to the problem of | climate change. | | Should the scientist adopt an absolutist/idealist position | and refrain from anything that contributes to the problem, | up to and including not traveling at all, because of the | harm that the plane will cause in transit? Should they | discard the potential longer term impact of convincing | policy makers to change policy? | | This is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. | | > _I 'm really surprised by all the apologists_ | | It think you are misinterpreting the sentiment. An | apologist would defend the tracking and ads themselves. | People are not defending tracking, they are defending the | _utility_ of using the available medium to raise awareness | about tracking and tools that can help mitigate it. | | > _the article is clearly click bait trying to cram ads | down your throat_ | | I would reframe this to something like: the majority of the | content publishing business has adopted a model that | embraces click bait and cramming ads down readers' throats. | | This is the reality we're in. | | As an author, if you want to bring awareness to this | problem, or offer solutions to this problem, it only makes | sense to publish that content where the readers are. | | At no point does the article try to reframe the problem of | tracking itself as a good thing. If it did, this would be a | very different conversation. | shortformblog wrote: | People don't usually automatically get to write at a | specific outlet just because. In this case, the writer | spent nearly a year freelancing at this outlet before they | became a full-time staff writer just last month, which | means they had to put a lot of work in to even get their | spot. | | Publishing is a very competitive field, especially in the | last decade as newspaper jobs have gone dry. Don't trash on | the writer because of where they work. | rjbwork wrote: | Traditionally, at publications of repute, the advertising and | journalism departments were entirely segregated from one | another. This gives the appearance of independence, rather than | being influenced by an advertiser. I expect that, especially | since the skill sets are rather orthogonal, that kind of | segregation still happens today on web publications. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | I was actually pretty impressed that a mainstream (read 'ad- | supported') outlet would run a story that encourages you to set | up uBlock etc. Contrast it to this article that ran recently[1] | on 'securing' your browser, which somehow manages to avoid | mentioning that adblocking would do ten times more to protect | you than any of the config changes it recommends... | | 1:https://gizmodo.com/how-to-secure-web-browser-chrome-edge- | fi... | notriddle wrote: | There are sensible game-theoretical reasons for behaving that | way. Individually choosing to forgo tracking hurts your | competitive edge. Advocating for ad blocking, environmental | regulations, or other industry-wide taxes will not, because | everyone gets hit with that. | sdoering wrote: | This was one of the reasons I left online publishing. | | When I did my internship in an ad agency the first thing I was | told was to install an adblocker. Talking about hypocrisy. | paulryanrogers wrote: | > When I did my internship in an ad agency the first thing I | was told was to install an adblocker. | | Is it possible there's an innocent explanation? Like to avoid | accusations of impression fraud or otherwise mitigate the | risk of false impressions? | | Yet I imagine one would also need a non-blocked browser to | check results and competitor ads too. | Bayko wrote: | Was a software developer in the ad industry. We dealt with | billions of ads. A hundred hell thousand ads here or there | won't make any difference. I did use ad block though except | for running tests on the code that I wrote. | [deleted] | for1nner wrote: | In fairness, the person writing the article doesn't really have | a say in the infra that the publisher is using. I agree that | doesn't make the hypocrisy magically disappear, but it | shouldn't detract from the points being made about the | platforms we use to access the web. | [deleted] | phkahler wrote: | A team owner can advocate for safety related rules in a | league while not having his own players adopt those changes | and start losing. | | Warren Buffet can advocate for changes in the tax laws that | benefit the country while still playing hard by the existing | rules. | | Authors can advocate for changes to the web while their host | is still doing the bad thing. | | These can be seen as hypocrisy, but I think there is a large | dose of honesty and in some cases humility in these | situations. | _fat_santa wrote: | True in theory but you also have to consider most writers | are just freelance and therefore have zero pull with the | publisher. | phkahler wrote: | So those are the least guilty of the examples I gave :-) | ta988 wrote: | And many are just desperate to have a publisher at all. | [deleted] | marginalia_nu wrote: | I feel this sort of black-and-white thinking about morality is | responsible for a lot of problems. Short of moving into the | desert and becoming some sort of Hesychastic hermit, it's | difficult, near impossible to lead a life where you do no evil. | | The conclusion many draw from that is not to even bother | trying. I think the better conclusion is to be forgiving of the | failings of others, because they too struggle with this. Maybe | the point isn't to be perfect, but to reach for what's good. | Epa095 wrote: | Perfect is the enemy of good! | zelphirkalt wrote: | Meh, it's quite easy to set up a website without third party | (or first party) trackers. Even some github.io kind of | website is better than a website with loads of tracker spam | on it. It is not about black and white thinking, it is about | putting in minimal effort and sticking to ones principles. | | Maybe it also involves greed for viewership, "wanting to make | it big" with some article, who knows. There is not much | preventing people from setting up a blog by themselves or ask | someone else to help them publish in an ethical way, at least | in many countries. | | I guess at least some positive outcome can be concluded: | People, who read on those websites might learn a thing or | two. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Well it's a trade-off. Let's hypothetically say you have an | important message that could save the world or something, | but scream as loud as you can, you can't make everyone hear | about it. You realize the only way to reach people is to do | compromise with your principles, like publishing it on a | major website that doesn't align with your values; which is | the lesser evil, not spreading your message, or spreading | it using those corrupt channels? | | I don't think there's an easy answer to this. It's easy to | focus too much on not doing evil that you miss the | opportunity cost of doing good. | tannhaeuser wrote: | I don't think writing a piece about privacy and then | including dozens of trackers is honest and helping the case | at all; "evil publisher" isn't an excuse. Can't have your | cake and eat it, too. | haswell wrote: | This assumes the author has any control over this. | | On a web dominated by tracking, the harsh reality is that | the avenues capable of reaching the widest audiences are | going to bring with them some...baggage. | | To conclude that this is dishonest is missing the forest | through the trees. | | Since tracking is the dominant reality, one of the best | things a smart consumer can do is use tools that help | counteract it. | | An article like this is using the medium available to help | people similarly unable to change that medium navigate it a | bit more safely. | | > _Can 't have your cake and eat it, too._ | | What is the cake here? What double standard does the author | benefit from if his writing encourages more people to | switch to a browser that is more resistant to the tracking | people are accusing the author of (endorsing? It's not | clear what the accusation actually is). | | Let's examine an alternative: The author tries to convince | the publisher to forego the apparatus that currently drives | their business model or they'll threaten to publish | elsewhere. | | The publisher calls this bluff, and the author self- | publishes instead. | | Fewer people read the article, fewer people switch to | Firefox, and fewer people gain a modicum of protection from | tracking. | | What about this outcome is better? | | If you gatekeep the act of publishing privacy awareness | content in this way, the only thing that happens is fewer | people become aware. The only thing that can weaken | tracking (aside from regulation) is making it less | effective. | | This mindset that only the pure/virtuous/perfect | implementation is acceptable, and anything else is somehow | unacceptable seems like a really good way to make no | progress at all. | | Refusing to acknowledge the situation we're in is just | denial. | wnevets wrote: | Reminds of "You say you want to improve society and yet you | live in one, how interesting" | alex_sf wrote: | I still don't understand why that's a bad argument. In | context, it's generally used to oppose hard leftist ideas | (Marxism, etc). It's rarely a criticism leveled at | reasonable reform or change; more when it nears outright | revolution. In that case, it's not an unreasonable | criticism. | virgildotcodes wrote: | It's a bad argument, it's a tu quoque logical fallacy. | | You can be a serial killer and admit that murdering | innocents is immoral. | | The identity and the actions of the person making the | argument have no bearing on the validity of the argument | itself, it should be judged purely on its own merits. | | Is that statement that "murdering innocents is immoral" | actually correct or not, regardless of who makes the | statement? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque | alex_sf wrote: | I addressed this in lighter terms below, but I don't | think this is a logical fallacy (in context). To carry on | your example, a serial killer that believes murdering | innocents is immoral should also consider themselves | immoral. They have the option to not kill, and continue | to do it. | | This is very different from the 'holier than thou' | perspective taken by those who condescendingly dismiss | arguments that they are contributing to things, by their | own free actions, that they claim are evil. | js8 wrote: | It's a bad argument, because validity of a critique is | not predicated on critic's life choice. It's like arguing | that you cannot critique a movie because you have never | made one. | alex_sf wrote: | It's not a critique of the idea alone, it's forcing it | into context. | | If we take a common example of how I've seen this play | out: | | A: iPhones and Apple are evil because they require child | slavery. | | B: But.. you own an iPhone? | | A: Oh so I'm just supposed to go live in the woods? | | I don't think B supports child slavery. B is pointing out | that even people espousing this idea participate in the | system because the alternative (not owning the iPhone) | results in a worse outcome. | chiefalchemist wrote: | Black and white? Or is the publisher + author being a | hypocrite? Feels like the latter. | | "Do as I say, not as I do" is rarely forgivable. One or two | lingering trackers? Maybe. But that's not the case here. | lolinder wrote: | OP's point is that we're all hypocrites to some degree. | Expecting someone to be doing everything right before they | can comment on how we can all improve leaves us waiting for | deity to resolve our problems. | chiefalchemist wrote: | Yes we are. Agreed. But in this case the publisher + | author are on the wrong side of the grey area. The number | of trackers is not an "oops". | alex_sf wrote: | I don't think it's ever fair to expect someone to do | everything right, but if you want to pontificate on a | specific issue, you should act in congruence with that. | sparrc wrote: | It's pretty simple. The journalist/editors want to write an | article about privacy and web tracking. The business people | want ads on the website to keep the lights on. | | And to be fair to the business people, it's not like they have | much choice. There are no major privacy-focused ad networks and | they need a source of revenue. What do you expect them to do? | bombcar wrote: | Sometimes the only moral act is to die. | | "Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of | coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing | certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not | doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die | rather than to do evil." | | At some point a company may have to make a decision that | results in their death if they want to continue to act | morally. | | But much, much more often they simply modify their morals | slightly and continue on. We humans are great at that. | shortformblog wrote: | Don't aim your weapons at the publishers, who are generally | working as morally as they can within the parameters | they've been given. | | Aim them at the ad technology firms that set the ground | rules for the industry decades ago. The publishers are | generally not the ones who let it degrade like this--the ad | industry, which set the expectations for advertisers and | marketers, did. | lolinder wrote: | What good would dying do in this case? There will be no | shortage of other publications that will fill in the gap | and happily embrace invasive advertising. If an | organization keeps the lights on with ad revenue and | teaches its readers to protect themselves from trackers, | they've done _more_ good than if they never existed at all. | afrcnc wrote: | tapper wrote: | Yeah that site is rideled with shitty trackers! | rvz wrote: | Well I had a look at this article on Firefox, just to see what | all the fuss is about and instantly in my face are all these | Ads on TechRadar's website. They weren't even disabled by | default on the first install and then you have Google being set | as the default search engine. I wonder who is going to tell the | editor why that is? | | So either way, nothing has changed from the typical user | standpoint who wants to just use a browser that not only | doesn't hog their computer but takes privacy _very_ seriously | and with that simple experiment I have done, it is clear users | are still no better off. | | They might as well use Brave instead of Firefox which actually | disables _ALL_ these ads by default on the first install by | having Brave Shields ON. | abandonliberty wrote: | Is it a win? | | Last I heard FF was generating a unique identifier on each | installer download. https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each- | firefox-download-has-... | | I'm hoping the Duck Duck Go browser or Vivaldi is better. | judge2020 wrote: | Usage analytics are pretty important for any product to stay | competitive, and IMO it's very different from any sort of | personalized ad tracking. | lelandfe wrote: | One-time download telemetry is a pretty minor reason to | choose an entirely different browser | jeltz wrote: | Chrome does the same and more. So, yes, it is a win. But | Firefox should really stop doing that. | agilob wrote: | Are you writing this on internet - a tech that most if not all | government use to spy on their citizens? Did you buy your | computer online paying by a card or cash? Is your hardware, | software all opensource and audited? Did you compile it all | yourself? | wly_cdgr wrote: | Why would you go back to Chrome? Everyone knows that the best | desktop browser these days is Edge | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | WebKit gets small details right such as option left right arrow | selects a word but not a comma after it. In Firefox if a comma is | next to a word without a space, it also gets selected. Stuff like | that makes Firefox less polished in my opinion. | kahnclusions wrote: | I've switched from Firefox to Safari for most of my browsing, and | Chrome for anything that needs devtools. | | Why? Battery. Efficiency. On the new M1 Macbooks I can run Safari | and be unplugged all day long. The increased power consumption | and battery drain is noticeable when using FF and I can't make it | all the way through the day. As far as extensions go, I have | 1Blocker and it works well, it does block YouTube ads. The only | things I miss are Tree Style Tabs and Container Tabs. | | I also find performance on FF to be a lot worse than both Chrome | and Safari. Firefox gets sluggish with many tabs open. JS-heavy | sites will be jittery and laggy in Firefox, but buttery smooth in | Chrome. Having 100 tabs open is sluggish in Firefox, but smooth | in Chrome/Safari. In FF some sites will occasionally crash their | tab, but they don't crash in Chrome/Safari. Etc. | | Then there's the attitude of Mozilla constantly changing the | interface, shoving things like Pocket or Mozilla VPN in my face. | Sorry Firefox, but I've left and not coming back. | nullwarp wrote: | My favorite part about Safari is how, because I don't own an | Apple device, I have next to no options for testing and fixing | the issues that get filed with regards to my web application | not working in Safari. | | Probably 2/3rds of the bugs I get are specifically related to | Safari while the other 1/3rd are just general issues that | affect every browser. | | It's insane to me that they provide no way to possibly resolve | this without going out and spending money to buy their | hardware. | tannhaeuser wrote: | What exactly do you expect? That Apple brings back Safari to | Windows and Linux? There's public demand for that every now | and then (eg [1]), but that has it's own set of problems ie. | that Safari-on-Win/Lin won't be representative of what's | rendered on Mac OS due to font handling, antialiasing, power | management, and other peculiarities on Mac OS (Mac OS would | typically run on much higher resolution than Win/Lin). | | I'm not even using Mac OS currently, but I don't think it's | Apple's job to make your web app run like on Chrome when | Google is calling the shots on so-called "web standards" with | tens or hundreds of new features every quarter, with | necessarily surprising results. Personally, I'd find it ok if | you just label your app with "Best run on Chrome" because | that's the reality the web has degraded to, and the actual | problem of web apps. Or deploy as Electron app on Mac OS. | | Maybe Apple could provide a Mac OS + Safari VM, like MS was | doing (or still is doing?) when they were producing IE. But | then the question is on which machine would you be able to | run those VMs given Apple is heading towards ARM-only | instruction set machines. Should Apple commit to produce x64 | binaries for backward-compatible emulation on historic | hardware? Personally, I do like Apple's innovation where the | rest of the industry is lagging behind. | | [1]: https://www.xda-developers.com/safari-for-windows- | editorial/ | MatthiasPortzel wrote: | This comes up every time and I have to point out that Apple | provides Linux builds of WebKit. | | => https://WebKit.org/downloads | | They're not marketed as "Safari" because Safari is part of | macOS, but it's an official build of the same rendering | engine. | seejayseesjays wrote: | Is Epiphany unworkable for testing? It's got the same engine | behind it. | selfhoster69 wrote: | Wait, Epiphany on elementaryOS is 100% WebKit? Had no idea | tbh. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | On the smoothness of JS, I wonder if that is more about site | developers testing against Chrome and Safari but not FF. | SamuelAdams wrote: | I tried safari, but the lack of extensions is a major turn off. | How do you browse the web without uBlock Origin or "I don't | care about cookies"? | Synaesthesia wrote: | An ad blocker is still a must have, and there are several | available. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I notice no difference between chrome and ublock origin or | safari and Wipr or Firefox Focus. | SixDouble5321 wrote: | Safari feels like what would happen if Playschool made a | browser. | | It's funny to me how many people give one tiny reason and are | like... Nope goodbye forever. | Macha wrote: | The extension list is a bit based on dated information. | | HTTPS everywhere is discontinued and replaced by built in browser | features. | | Privacy Badger doesn't do user side learning anymore as people | proved that in itself could be used for fingerprinting. | butz wrote: | Yes, Firefox has quite a few issues, starting from strange UI | decisions (tabs that don't look like tabs, etc.), product | integration (Pocket) and promotion (Firefox VPN in private mode | window), compatibility issues with video conferencing | applications (MS Teams, Facetime, probably others). But compared | to other browsers, you can customize browser and solve quite a | few of them, unlike in other competing browsers, where what you | get, that you are forced to use and cannot change. I'd only wish | Firefox developers (or management team) would take customization | more seriously, as it is one of main selling features, that few | users know about. | moffkalast wrote: | I'm still missing the "share tab" option in Google and Jitsi | Meet, without it work meetings get a lot less private. I've | found a pretty good plugin to fix the 'tabs that don't look | like tabs' design problem, though it's a real pain in the ass | to install and a major problem when switching to new devices. | I'm not sure why they changed that, the old design was a lot | clearer. On the other hand the fact that it doesn't support | Chromecast is a big plus, since that's impossible to turn off | in Chrome with recent updates and can it be problematic if | you're not the owner of all Chromecasts on your damn network. | | As of right now Firefox stays the side browser for code testing | and whatnot, but it falls short for daily use for me. | phendrenad2 wrote: | What customization do you use? Personally I only customized FF | by adding a youtube video downloaded, and I just open Firefox | whenever I need that. | stavros wrote: | I've been using Firefox for around a decade, maybe? I've always | liked it, but recently I switched to Vivaldi and I'm impressed by | the amount of useful features it has. | | My first browser was Opera and I'm a huge fan, so to see that the | CTO of Opera has decided to basically recreate Opera is very | alluring. | CarVac wrote: | Firefox is worth it if only for Tree Style Tab. | [deleted] | DeathMetal3000 wrote: | Firefox is the best browser in many respects. But even if it | wasn't. Even if it was missing extensions, used all my RAM and | chewed my CPU, I would still choose it over Chrome. Because using | a browser from the world's biggest advertiser is wrong on | principle. And using an ad blocker (I don't use one) while using | a browser made by an advertiser is next level cognitive | dissonance. | philsnow wrote: | > using a browser from the world's biggest advertiser is wrong | on principle | | Spot on. As said many many times, the browser is the new OS. | | If Google wowed the world and introduced a free (beer or | speech, doesn't matter) Windows-killer OS[0] that was better in | every way than Windows, was Windows-compatible, _tons_ of | people would use it. You and I wouldn 't. | | [0] I do know about ChromeOS, yes | mrits wrote: | It is literally not cognitive dissonance. | haswell wrote: | It would be helpful to share an argument supporting your | assertion if the goal is to help people understand and/or | agree with your position. | | If you consider a simplified definition of cognitive | dissonance that goes something like "thoughts or actions that | do not match your beliefs or values", then the behavior | described by the parent comment could be cognitive | dissonance, but probably only if certain things are true: | | - The person understands the nature of Google's business | | - The person believes that using Chrome still benefits Google | even when anti-tracking extensions are installed | | That said, the people who understand enough to be categorized | as such are not the average Chrome user. The average user is | not experiencing cognitive dissonance, they just don't know | any better. | dontcontactme wrote: | I think most people use an adblocker to avoid seeing ads, not | privacy. Most people (myself included) care more about saving | time on YouTube videos and making webpages not have pop ups all | over the place than privacy. | feanaro wrote: | That's a pretty big assumption. I'd say my motivation is | exactly the reverse of that. | haswell wrote: | > _I think most people_ | | > _I 'd say my motivation_ | | I'd be careful not to generalize your own experience here. | Just the fact that we are having this conversation on HN | puts us in a bubble that is not representative of "most | people". | | My motivation is privacy. The motivation of many people I | know is "ads are super annoying". Privacy awareness is | growing, but most people are not as aware as the people on | this thread. | feanaro wrote: | This works both ways, and I'm warning of generalizing in | the other direction based on an _assumption_ of what is | "normal among normal people". | [deleted] | fernvenue wrote: | Here's another thing, Firefox use OCSP to check certificates of | websites by default, but Chrome don't. | Beached wrote: | I wish I could use FF full time. but unfortunately I need to be | able to use background blur in Google hangouts, and FF doesn't | support. that's the last feature I'm waiting on. | lol768 wrote: | Is it FF that doesn't support these things, or Google that | doesn't bother supporting browsers that aren't their own? | | I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle. | | Here's the bug: | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1703668 - sounds | like it would work, but not with acceptable performance at | present | g3rv4 wrote: | Replied with this on a different thread, but I built an | extension[1] so that I could choose which sites are opened in | Chrome... so that whenever I need to use Google Meet, it | automatically opens it on Chrome. | | [1]: https://onchrome.gervas.io | rmdoss wrote: | As a long time Firefox user, my main issue with Firefox is | Mozilla itself and their focus shifting to VPNs, pocket and | things non browser related. | | But still love Firefox. | SixDouble5321 wrote: | Unfortunately Mozilla needs money. | Tagbert wrote: | Oddly, I kind of like Pocket but I understand why you might | choose not to use it. | bbkane wrote: | I'm a big fan of Firefox containers. I occasionally need | different logins for the same sites and containers make that much | easier than Google's profile feature. | raffraffraff wrote: | Containers is the big thing imho. Having two bookmarks that go | to different Gmail accounts, with each opening in a different | container tab, and each container being logged into just that | account. Same for AWS accounts. | bee_rider wrote: | Is the purpose of using two bookmarks to open the container | and gmail simultaneously? I just use one bookmark, two | containers, each is only logged on to one gmail account. | adamfrank321 wrote: | Are extensions and their settings shared across all containers? | | One thing I love about Chrome/Edge profiles is being able to | different extensions enabled/disabled and configured | differently across them. | | For example, I have a "private" profile that always runs | windscribe vpn and other privacy-heavy extensions that I might | not necessarily want running on my "base" profile. | happymellon wrote: | Saves us with AWS accounts! | GekkePrutser wrote: | O365 tenants too! Finally possible to log into multiple at | the same time. | | Though MS Teams often gets stuck in a reload loop inside a | container, but Teams is a total trainwreck anyway. | happymellon wrote: | Not surprised. Do they not realize that some of us deal | with more than one account? | INTPenis wrote: | I've always been pragmatic about my browser choice, not | prioritizing performance but rather security, configurability and | open source contribution. So I used Firefox since the very first | Phoenix beta because I came from using the Mozilla browser. | | Only for a short while in the early 00s my poor laptop couldn't | runt FF with 256M RAM so I had to use Opera. I had to enter PF | rules to make the stupid ads in the UI disappear. But within | probably 2 years I had a new laptop and was back with FF. | | The main sell in the early 00s was that afaik noscript could not | function in Chrome or Opera due to the design of its web plugins, | so FF pretty much had a monopoly of the paranoid like me. | | And by now I just feel that any privacy enhancements can be done | with a custom user.js so I see no reason for any other browser | than the upstream FF. | newbieuser wrote: | I've been using google chrome for years but now it works worse | with every new update. constantly changing features, newly added | nonsense, ram usage problems, I'm really tired of it all now. I | think it is the most logical to switch to firefox or another | alternative. | HKH2 wrote: | If Mozilla really cares about your privacy, why do you have to | install extensions in Firefox to get it? | | By the way, Firefox does track you. At the very least, it phones | home, and it gives each installer a unique identifier. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | If you use Firefox Focus, you don't need to install extensions. | pessimizer wrote: | Mozilla actively removed the ability to conveniently disable | javascript, and left deleting cookies or localStorage from | specific sites hellishly difficult. Mozilla somewhat cares | about press releasing about your privacy. | jfk13 wrote: | There's a vast difference between Mozilla's telemetry and | Google's user tracking. | [deleted] | irrational wrote: | I started using Firefox ages ago because of firebug. I've been | using it as my primary browser ever since. I've never had an | issue with it (other than the occasional web site that is | designed to only work with Chrome). Maybe I don't know what I'm | missing since I haven't given Chrome a try (other than loading | the occasional website that only works on Chrome). Maybe Chrome | is better than Firefox, but I don't have any complaints about | Firefox (though I do have complaints about bad website | developers). | Beldin wrote: | I keep having to "forget about this site" for YouTube after | watching (admittedly many) videos - every 2 months or so. The | tell-tale sign is that videos stutter outrageously. It is | surprisingly consistent - stutters / freezes happening, forget | about site, problem solved. | | I would be surprised if this is solely due to Firefox btw; I | trust YT-owner Google about as far as I can toss the lot of | them. | julianlam wrote: | The big one for me is that Chrome's JavaScript engine is much | faster than Mozilla's. I'm not sure why, but it makes a | noticible difference. | | I use this to my advantage by using FF as my daily driver. I | believe that if my site is fast on Firefox, then it's damn near | fast enough for everyone. | drathier wrote: | Lots of web devs only testing in chromium browsers, perhaps? | irrational wrote: | What we do at my company is I only test in Firefox, another | developer only uses Chrome, a third only uses edge and QA | tests on Safari. | robin_reala wrote: | I ran into an interesting situation where I was building a | Conway implementation and getting 60fps in Firefox / 10fps in | Chrome. Turned out that Chrome had absolutely horrible | performance with attempts to access out-of-bounds array | indexes, where Firefox had some early fail fasts in place. | | So anecdata, but I wouldn't rely on Chrome automatically | working well if Firefox does. | roschdal wrote: | Once you go Firefox, you can never go back. | aikah wrote: | The 2 reasons why I don't use Chrome is | | 1/ You can't mute tabs by default | | 2/ You can't prevent videos to auto-start. | | Simple as that, I think muting tabs was possible in the past, but | of course, Chrome team removed that function because youtube. | tomComb wrote: | Gawd yes, thank you. | | I actually find Chrome to be faster and generally appreciate | the contributions that Google has made to try to keep the web | competitive with the proprietary platforms, but I can't get | past the auto-start video issue. | gernb wrote: | You know that Chrome tried to remove auto-start videos and | advertisers just ended up writing their own battery sucking | slow canvas based software decoders? | | That Firefox is doing this is very much like yesterday's new | Facebook URL | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32117489 | | where people complained Firefox screwed up by escalating. | soraminazuki wrote: | > where people complained Firefox screwed up by escalating | | I believe that was a single person. | bilkow wrote: | By default firefox only prevents content with audio from | autoplaying, which I can't think of any way to circumvent and | it's probably good enough for most people. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | I started using a text-only browser for recreational web use (not | lynx) and can never go back to a graphical one. | | The popular graphical browsers keep growing in size and | complexity but I am still doing the same basic tasks on the web, | i.e., retrieving files and consuming them. For these basic tasks, | the so-called "modern" browsers are overkill. Chrome is something | like 150MB with dynamic libraries. The text-only browser I am | using to submit this comment is a 1.3MB static binary. | dleslie wrote: | ... so which one is it, if not Lynx? | | Links, elinks, links2, netrik, w3m, ..? | epups wrote: | My computer has enough power that any performance hit from | Firefox is negligible. I will continue to use it over Chrome as | long as possible. | tzs wrote: | I went the other way after a few years on Firefox mostly for one | reason. Too often when posting something here, on Reddit, in a | web-based email client, on Facebook, etc., I'd end up having to | spend too much time dealing with false positives in its spell | check. | | It's weird because they use the same spell check engine that | Chrome, Apple, LibreOffice, and a bazillion other commercial and | open source things use, and those almost never produce false | positives on my writing. | | Mozilla needs to address things like this if they want to stop | losing share to other browsers. | megraf wrote: | I feel the same way about Safari. Yes, it's not perfect- and no, | you don't get all the flexibility, but it's so lightweight, | stable, and energy efficient, I have a hard time considering | something with a few more features in the categories I've been | able to do without. | colordrops wrote: | I'm finally using Firefox as my daily driver now after a half | dozen attempts over the years. They finally got the major perf | issues and UX warts ironed out. I don't feel like I'm | compromising anymore, in fact quite the opposite, especially when | using privacy containers. | baby wrote: | Just for tree style tabs, firefox is worth it | flerchin wrote: | Firefox on Android with ublock origin is a _must_. Otherwise the | mobile web is nigh unusable. | haolez wrote: | I use Chrome Mobile with NextDNS blocking the ads. The | experience is mostly the same. | celsoazevedo wrote: | A lot of stuff is loaded from the same host as the content. | For example, a DNS blocking solution like NextDNS can't block | YouTube ads without breaking the videos (same with ads on | Google Search and many other sites). It also can't apply | cosmetic filters to block things like cookies popups or hide | empty spots where ads are supposed to be displayed. | | DNS blocking is better than nothing, but it's very basic when | compared to a browser extension like uBlock Origin. | raffraffraff wrote: | Except the cost, unless that's now free | baal80spam wrote: | I use Brave - it has builtin ad/scriptblocker. | GekkePrutser wrote: | But also builtin cryptoscams :( | fuckcensorship wrote: | Out of curiosity, do you have an issue with crypto as a | whole or is there something about Brave's BAT in particular | that you dislike? | gnlrtntv wrote: | Aside from some of the common critiques of purpose- | oriented blockchain tech, I think there's a question with | BAT of if creating a token-based ecosystem with this | thing actually creates economic incentives that align | with the overall improvement of our society, or if it | merely contributes to the existing problems that have | enabled intrusive ad tech in the first place. | | On a small scale, paying to be able to take away ads (or | getting paid to see them -- ultimately, the difference is | negligible, given how pervasive ads are in our lives) is | a nice experience to have. But it has a lot of | implications long-term on our society, given ads are the | primary way we finance pretty much all information we | have access to these days. | | How does this affect upward mobility? If a person in | poverty wants to get out of poverty by learning a | difficult skill, getting access to the information and | learning it will be a longer, more difficult process for | them. They will be interrupted more often than wealthier | people, they will have less time to dedicate to doing the | task at hand than wealthier people, etc. | | I personally think it's difficult to get excited about | any system that wraps the way we gate access to | information in our society without considering this | element, because the ability for people to move up in | life is really one of the great promises of the internet, | and nobody should lose that. | GekkePrutser wrote: | I think crypto in general is disastrous for our | environment right now, and has offered none of the self- | control finance benefits it promised due to ever more | regulation (the EU is soon planning to ban private | wallets, you can only legally host money on exchanges | then, which basically means we're full circle to the old | banking system). All this has been precipitated by the | frantic speculators looking for a quick buck. Bitcoin | wasn't invented to enable money-hoarding investors, it | was designed to undermine the old banking system and give | us back full control over our money. This aspect has been | completely undermined by regulation now. | | But BAT is a different beast as it doesn't use mining. So | my concern is not the same as for general crypto schemes. | | It's the BAT idea in particular that I don't like though. | It's just a new, more indirect, payment scheme for | advertisers. I just want the advertising industry to die | and get out from between the content creators and | consumers. I know this is not a realistic viewpoint but | I'm not willing to contribute to it. Brave solves the | privacy problem to some extent but not the ad problem. | And in a way they even promote ads by paying users to | view them. | | Brave seems to be looking to make the current system more | palatable (and of course become the gatekeeper for this | new tech which would be priceless if it ever took off). | I've long given up on the ad system completely. I already | pay for the sites I like and use a lot (at least where | they offer this option) but I don't make any exception | for adblocking ever. Even when they're non-tracked. | cowtools wrote: | >the EU is soon planning to ban private wallets, you can | only legally host money on exchanges then, which | basically means we're full circle to the old banking | system | | They can try to "ban" whatever they want, but it's not | happening. | zamadatix wrote: | There are a dozen Chromium browsers on Android with blockers | but it's still not quite the same. | | Raw < DNS blocking < custom solutions < uBlock Origin | RedComet wrote: | I doesn't block most (1st party) ads. See twitter, reddit, | etc for example. Yes, that is with shields set to aggressive. | | FF + uBlock, on the other hand, has no problem with this. | chakkepolja wrote: | Brave feels much more cluttered and heavier. | | Secondly, enabling JS on per site basis is easier on FF | Android with UBO. Speeds up browsing a lot. | kybernetyk wrote: | I switched to FF when Safari became unusable on Mac (Apple | killing off extensions). For me FF is the least worst browser. | They all suck. FF just sucks less. | donutshop wrote: | Love FF. Container tabs was a game changer as it allows for easy | contesting switching between different identities. | | For those who are more privacy focused LibreWolf is a good fork. | pjmlp wrote: | Ironically I just went the other way today, because Firefox | became unusable in a 2009 laptop, and requires add-ons to control | their exponential use of processes (on a dual core). | | Meanwhile Chrome, with all its usual bloat, works perfectly fine. | yasoob wrote: | PiP in Firefox is the killer feature for me. | rraghur wrote: | You'll have to pry Firefox from my cold, dead hands! | | At the outset, yes, chromium based browsers feel snappier.. | | But, stuff that Chrome will not have and are absolutely essential | | 1. Containers... I use another unverified extension to match urls | and automatically assign containers... | | 2. Ublock origin | | 3. Tree style tabs | | 4. Developer console... Edit and resend any request | | That said, i still end up using chromium for teams and outlook | 365 (pwa install feature is nice)... But that's only because i | don't have any other options with those two | wizofaus wrote: | "4. Developer console... Edit and resend any request" - there | have been extensions for that in Chrome for a long time, though | I don't know if they integrate with the developer tools/network | tab itself. Agree it would be handy - I use the "replay" | command in Chrome DevTools quite a bit, and if I need to modify | it usually end up importing it into Postman (via the copy as | cURL command, which I believe Firefox also supports). | SixDouble5321 wrote: | I am confused about the "I don't have any other choice" | comment. I assume you mean because Firefox doesn't support | whatever teams uses for meeting audio/video, or maybe it's the | install feature you mentioned, but I use Firefox for both and | use my phone for meetings. | whitesilhouette wrote: | There are times when I've noticed Teams to fail if I try to | open it from one of my Container tabs. It complains about | supported browser and stuff. But it opens perfectly on the | default tab always. | ghjnut wrote: | Which container extension are you using for domain grouping? | I've been looking for a good one | amelius wrote: | Perhaps someone can build a container system around chrome (or | in fact any application). Ideally, an OS should be able to do | something like this. | zh3 wrote: | On linux, just create a separate login and use Chrome there. | In fact, what I do is create a separate user, start Chrome | once, do any configuration I want and then create a tarball | of the separate user's home directory. Then to start a fresh | it's just a wipe of the whole directory and unpack the | tarball again. | | It's fast enough to just run Chrome in a loop, and on each | exit wipe and unpack the original state again. | | I call it Groundhog Day Mode. | chupasaurus wrote: | On Linux you could do the same with mount namespace without | making a separate user etc. | zamadatix wrote: | The way Firefox style containers work they need to be "built | into" not "built around". It's not as much about creating a | profile and running it separately (that's just standard | profiles in Chrome/Firefox, or normal OS level sandboxing) as | it is auto-launching webpage requests into that profile based | on matches and integrating the profiles into the app UI so | the tabs stand out, can co-exist in the same window, and can | be managed via built in tab creation UI. | | Chromium hasn't been interested in this feature but nothing | would stop someone from making a Chromium derivative that | does this. | vachina wrote: | Why not use the native user profile function? E.g. set up a | "user profile" dedicated to access only Meta/Facebook | properties (and therefore only be able to track you within | that container) | theden wrote: | uBlock Origin does exist on chrome btw | https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... | feanaro wrote: | But with Manifest v2 will be crippled. | sieabahlpark wrote: | feanaro wrote: | As the other poster said, I meant Manifest v3 (can't edit | anymore). | | To answer the poster's curiosity, I messed it up by | pressing the neighbouring key by accident and not checking | sufficiently. :-P | rocho wrote: | As far as I know Chrome has its own tracking which can't be | blocked. | SixDouble5321 wrote: | It's not feature complete. | grupthink wrote: | What features are incomplete? | seejayseesjays wrote: | My pecking order is Firefox on my PC, Firefox on my Mac when I | need uBlock for something, Safari for everything else. (And Edge, | for when I want to make sure everything I make looks as good on | Chromium as it does on WebKit and Gecko) | j45 wrote: | I'm curious if anyone is using Brave or another Chrome based | browser in lieu of Chrome and what their experience has been? | endorphine wrote: | Without Firefox and a few extensions like uBlock Origin, | Decentraleyes and Privacy Badger, I feel like I'm naked when | browsing the web. | | Also, check out Firefox Focus on Android. Pretty convenient to | use as the default browser for guest browsing. | ssl232 wrote: | You don't actually need Decentraleyes or Privacy Badger now | that Firefox has total cookie protection and that uBlock Origin | supports their other features (some via lists). Arkenfox has a | useful write-up on this: | https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions. | | I only have four extensions now: uBlock Origin, I Don't Care | About Cookies, one for user agent switching, and one for | removing HTML elements via the context menu. | nklmilojevic wrote: | You can also add I Don't Care About Cookies list in uBlock | Origin. | ssl232 wrote: | Oh that's great - thanks - yet another extension to | disable! | patrick451 wrote: | I used to use firefox exclusively. | | But they have been on a road of adding increasinly user hostile | "features" to the browser that I just can't take. | | I snapped when they implemented automatic updates. I've never | been so pissed at a piece of software than I have been at firefox | when I hit Ctrl-T and the damn thing refuses to work until I | restart it. And for a long time, it wouldn't even restart, it | just exited. | | While I'd prefer to install updates manually through apt (like | every other piece of software on my laptop), if they are going to | be so patronizing that they won't allow that, they need to fix | they update process to not require a restart. Until that happens | I'll use chromium. | zamadatix wrote: | Firefox has always had automatic updates but only on systems | that don't manage the software updates via centralized package | manager. E.g. any chance you're an Ubuntu user? They just | switched it over to being a snap package instead of an apt | package with 21.10. | | Regardless if you open settings UI there is a radiobox to | toggle between auto-installing updates and just notifying you | when your version is out of date. If that's not there then it's | your distro's build that is forcing updates to be done that | way, not Mozilla. | slowmovintarget wrote: | I only use Chrome for some of the pants-down redirect-happy stuff | required by work. FF tends to break the transitions because they | are inherently insecure, but Chrome happily proceeds with them. | siraben wrote: | The HTTPS Everywhere extension has been redundant for some | time[0] and I have Firefox configured to give a visible warning | when connecting to a website with HTTP. | | [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/https-actually- | everywh... | Jenk wrote: | I used Firefox in the early-mid 00s, switched to Chrome not long | after launch, after my colleagues showed me how much slicker is | was than a now fairly heavy Firefox (at the time.) | | Then evil Google emerges, Chrome got fat, FF trimmed up and went | privacy-as-a-default, and I'm back on FF again for the better | part of the last decade. | | Opera had a look-in around 2008 but it didn't last long, although | some of the features were nicely done, it just had a clunky | feeling and the rendering was ... Different. | tppiotrowski wrote: | The right click mouse gestures of Opera were great for quickly | navigating back/forward and creating new tabs. | chx wrote: | I never stopped using them. I never _could_ stop using them, | it feels so clumsy to work a PC without gestures. I am | currently using StrokesPlus.net for this purpose, I am sure | there are others. | kitd wrote: | _Chrome got fat_ | | Vivaldi works quite well as a thinner Chrome alternative IMO. | geogra4 wrote: | Big Vivaldi fan here. | go2europa wrote: | do you have any recommended extensions for auto-hibernating | tabs? or how do you approach having many tabs? having no | built-in way to do it is unfortunate but I'm really liking | the other tab features | pmoleri wrote: | Around 2012 my 6GB Ram laptop was struggling with Chrome, I | switched to FF and got much better experience there. Then with | FF Quantum release I adopted it definitely. | chappi42 wrote: | I never switched to Chrome, always used Firefox. | | But it increasingly got more config-involving to make FF do | what I wanted and maybe I overdid some settings/plugins and | websites started to show incorrectly. Also the imho (much) too | high salary for the CEO annoyed me (Mozilla is supposed to be | "Internet for people, not profit"). | | Tried Brave and it was a nice experience after some initial | cost to e.g. disable crypto. Some weeks ago I uninstalled FF on | all my computers... | monetus wrote: | It is kind of a conundrum. The Mozilla situation seems | clearly to be self serving and crippling the potential of the | browser. The CEO's pay exemplary of that - and similar | situations are there with brave. The founder was forced out | of Mozilla for a reason, but setting that aside, the liberty | they took with collecting crypto for businesses while those | businesses were unaware put me off of them in a profound way. | The niche the browser itself fills is obviously good but the | methods seem... off, not malicious intent, just questionable. | Changing the ad economy isn't bad for example, a great | driving motivation. | jshen wrote: | How much was the CEO getting paid? | causality0 wrote: | The worst thing about using Firefox is that the longer you | use it the more things you have done to un-fuck it and the | more work it is to replicate all those things on a new | system. | divs1210 wrote: | Same! I switched from FF to Brave a few months back, and I'm | liking it a lot. | | I miss a few features, but nothing major. | retrocryptid wrote: | I used to work with Brendan and despite being trans felt he | sorta got the shaft from Mozilla. I know everyone was upset | with him, but for a year and a half I worked with him and | he was never anything but cordial to me... an out trans | queer person. | | So when he launched Brave I wanted to give it the benefit | if the doubt. But the early messaging about what conditions | ads are replaced was hamfisted and I stopped using it | relatively quickly. | | That being said... all the browsers (FF, Brave, Chrome, | Safari, etc.) embody the agenda of their respective | organizations. The question you may want to ask is "what | organization has the most motivation to address issues I | care about most?" | | This is why I use Lynx. | triyambakam wrote: | Yep! Lifetime FF user and I switched to Brave a few weeks | ago. It took a little while to get used to the interface | but otherwise enjoying it. | iknowstuff wrote: | Given that Brave is a for-profit business backed by VC | money[1], sooner or later it'll become what you hate and you | will find yourself wishing there was a browser ran by a | strong non-profit like Mozilla. | | That being said, perhaps they should just piggyback off | WebKit/Blink and save themselves a ton of resources. | | [1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/brave-software | chappi42 wrote: | I'm aware that Brave is a for-profit company, this must not | necessarily mean that they'll do evil things. And if they | would and Mozilla is no longer around, this could also be | because Google stopped funding them. | BuyMyBitcoins wrote: | Mozilla may be a non-profit but there's a saying: "non | profit doesn't mean they don't make money". | | It's not _too_ difficult to disable, but Firefox does push | suggestions by default and has a revenue sharing agreement | with Pocket. | Lev1a wrote: | > Firefox [...] has a revenue sharing agreement with | Pocket | | "Mozilla Corporation" bought Pocket in 2017. | | Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_(service) : | | > On February 27, 2017, Pocket announced that it had been | acquired by Mozilla Corporation, the commercial arm of | Firefox's non-profit development group. Mozilla staff | stated that Pocket would continue to operate as an | independent subsidiary but that it would be leveraged as | part of an ongoing "Context Graph" project.[6] There are | plans to open-source the server-side code of | Pocket,[11][12][13] with more than 50 repositories | already available on the company's GitHub account, | including their iOS app. | cedilla wrote: | Pocket has been acquired by Mozilla a few years ago. | avereveard wrote: | Same path, the late xulrunner runtime was squeaking around all | corners and chrome came out at Firefox weakest moment, it | spread trough my friends circles like wildlife. | | I went back to Firefox just because of Chrome api change | against adblockers, and found it very usable and mature, but | it's a tougher sell to my friends as the difference | unnoticeable | spurgu wrote: | I'd switch to Firefox in a heartbeat if I could somehow focus | the URL bar with Cmd+D instead of Cmd+L (years of muscle memory | with Alt+D on Linux previously). | | Other browsers have a menu entry for this (File -> Open | Location... in Chrome) so keyboard shortcuts can be switched in | the Keyboard settings but Firefox doesn't have this. :| | | I've tried various methods without success. If anyone had a | working solution I'd be very grateful. | dan-robertson wrote: | I think it may be possible to change browser shortcuts with a | custom UserChrome.js but it is very much going down a | nonstandard path. | kavothe wrote: | Just press F6 and it'll focus into the URL bar | bl4ckcontact wrote: | If I recall, F6 should get what you're after. | spurgu wrote: | As I said I want it specifically to be Cmd+D (instead of | the default Cmd+L). | atwood22 wrote: | It would be pretty trivial to write an extension that | does that. | dan-robertson wrote: | I don't think Firefox extensions can do this sort of | thing. | atwood22 wrote: | Yea you're right. Looks like they removed the ability of | extensions to do that back in 2017. Sad :( | mixmastamyk wrote: | Option+D would be the analogue on Mac. | | This might work: https://addons.mozilla.org/en- | US/firefox/addon/shortkeys/ | spurgu wrote: | > Option+D would be the analogue on Mac. | | For me it's "the key to the left of the spacebar" in terms | of muscle memory, so Cmd on Mac. | | Tried it, as well as modifying omni.ja... From the add-on | page (I tried it): | | > shortkeys cannot override Firefox default shortcuts | bussierem wrote: | I'm on Windows 10 with FF right now and Alt+D just worked for | me, along with Cmd+L and F6 as other have said. I think your | muscle memory should be just fine. Time to switch! | spurgu wrote: | Time to switch to Windows? :o | | Edit: I moved off Windows around 2005 followed by a decade | of Linux and since then Mac. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | I find Firefox to be a superior browser and I use it Firefox on | all my devices. But I would have used it even if it wasn't | better, because I have lived through IE6 era and I know what | browser monoculture results in. We don't need another browser | engine monopoly. | ecuaflo wrote: | When I tried it a few years ago on iphone, it would constantly | crash and I'd lose all my tabs. I wanted sync between mobile | and desktop so needed to switch to Chrome. Any idea if it has | gotten better? | roca wrote: | iPhone Firefox isn't really Firefox, it's still using Apple's | Webkit engine (as does Chrome on iPhone). | na85 wrote: | Firefox sync works well. I have an Android so can't comment | on the iphone but Firefox works well on my MacBook. | dj_gitmo wrote: | It hasn't crashed for me in a very long time. IOS now | (reluctantly) lets you set it as the default browser, | although you'll need to hunt around the settings. | [deleted] | reaperducer wrote: | Somewhat off-topic, but perhaps the smart people on HN can help | me with this. | | The one thing that keeps me from switching from Safari to Firefox | is that I cannot customize tab switching. In every macOS program | I use, I use the same key binding to switch between tabs. Because | there is no "Next tab" or "Previous tab" menu item in Firefox, I | cannot assign this function to a key with the macOS keyboard | shortcuts in System Preferences. | | I've looked in Firefox's setting and searched online and haven't | found anything that helps. Though, to be honest, I'd prefer it to | be part of the system native options so that it can follow me | during upgrades. | | At this point, I'm willing to consider employing BetterTouchTool, | if that's a solution. But again, I'd rather go native. | zerop wrote: | I did that transition recently and have no major problem with FF. | I am liking it. | brassattax wrote: | Says a website with 20 ads on it | comprev wrote: | I only ever use Chrome for websites which need translation into | English - probably less than 1% of those I visit. Firefox for | everything else. | unpopularopp wrote: | I don't get the extensions part. All of them apart from the | containers (that's a browser or more like engine specific | behavior) are available for Chrome so they are not FF-only. Most | of them are "over the top" if you start with uBlock Origin too. | Like you don't need multiple extensions to do the same thing > | most of the time that leads to broken sites. uBlock Origin on its | own is incredibly powerful. Last but not least HTTPS Everywhere | is also obsolete because you can force any browsers now to open | sites with HTTPS only, you don't need it that anymore. | https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/https-actually-everywh... | | And no offense if TechRadar is writing articles like this... they | should open their own site without any of the extensions and | watch the ads, popups, autoplay videos and such. Maybe they will | notice the problem doesn't start with the browser of your choice. | pessimizer wrote: | They're also more frequently updated on Chrome, and smell less | like malware. The Firefox addon directory is a hellhole. The | only place where Chrome fails on this is on uBlock, but that's | completely intentional because they're an ad company. | foepys wrote: | uBlock Origin is already working better on Firefox than chrome | since Google is crippling features. | | See "uBlock Origin works best on Firefox" in the official | GitHub repo's wiki: | | https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... | MegaDeKay wrote: | The article specifically talks "of Google breaking those | AdBlock extensions in 2023 with a massive update, which is | rather terrifying, to say the least." What is referenced here | is Manifest V3. Gorhill, uBlock Origin developer, agrees that | this will significantly limit uBlock Origin on Chrome. | | https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss... | thrown1aways wrote: | >The article specifically talks of Google breaking those | AdBlock extensions | | I bet there will be a Chromium for without that + Brave is | already working on it. Power of open source I guess? | GekkePrutser wrote: | Every feature removed by Google will have to be maintained | by the open source community instead. That's going to be a | workload that I'm not sure who is going to pick up. After | all Chromium right now is maintained by Google. There's | some forks like degoogled chromium but they are mainly | focused on removing features, not rebuilding ones that have | been deprecated. | | Brave is an option but I don't really like where they're | heading with their crypto tokens. | tomComb wrote: | Oh, no, Microsoft, Brave, and all the other companies | that repackage Chrome will have to actually contribute to | the base (or a fork). /s | thegabez wrote: | The crypto aspect is opt-in | swat535 wrote: | Only for now, they will bait and switch soon enough. We | have seen this happen too many times. | GekkePrutser wrote: | I know but it's a core integrated part of the product. | | If you don't care about that, firefox with uBO is really | much better IMO. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Yeah you can bet that Google will do anything they can to | stop adblockers once their FLoC replacement is online. After | all, in their view they have solved the "privacy problem". | | Chrome is only going downhill from now. So is Edge, Microsoft | has already at the stage where they don't prioritise user | experience and appeal anymore and are priorising | monetisation. Like with the "buy now and pay later" scams | they're including. It's IE4 all over again, once they arrive | at the desired marketshare the user is just a dumb sheep to | them again. | | Unfortunately Mozilla is far from perfect, they're becoming | too corporate and weaseling in monetisation schemes totally | in conflict with their goals. But they're still a world | better. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | Can you elaborate on the Mozilla corporate weasel part? As | far as I can tell, they are just a) poorly managed and b) | desperately trying to diversify revenue away from search | prioritization contracts. | GekkePrutser wrote: | True but they are looking in all the wrong places. | Including pocket "featured headlines", vpn services that | are just a resell, just lowhanging fruit that does | nothing but annoy the users that still care about them. | | Meanwhile they try to make the browser as mainstream | friendly, not understanding that the mainstream has long | given up on them and they only have the last remaining | bastion of hardcore privacy users left. Whose user | patterns they're not seeing because they focus too much | on telemetry. | | I think since they became Mozilla Inc they started | thinking like big tech and are slowly becoming just like | it. But because their foundation origins the declining | marketshare is not ringing their alarm bells like they, | in a real company, would. | | If they really wanted to diversify and get me to pay for | something, they have to do more than just resell mullvad. | I'm a mullvad user but I much rather pay for that | directly as it gives me a lot more features. I love | mullvad but I want to use it in more than just a browser. | | What I'd want to see and would pay for: | | - A service like Apple's iCloud Private Relay that really | makes browsing more anonymous (rather than a basic VPN | which they offer now, that's too little too late). | | - Paid Sync storage (with full E2E so I have no reason to | self-host) | | - An archiving service of webpages (also E2E). Because | onenote sucks more and more | | Basically things other than 'quick wins' but that need | some serious vision and development. Right now they're | thinking way too much like a lazy CEO, doing a quick tie- | in with another service hoping for some takeup or some | cheap marketing benefit. | | If they want to diversify and get people to pay they | really have to offer some real benefits that are a gap in | the market. Those exist but they need some more work than | just a quick joint marketing effort. | zargon wrote: | I would pay for Firefox itself, no extras necessary or | wanted. But there's no way to do that. | t6jvcereio wrote: | You're fixating on the details too much, but if you wanna | fixate on details, you can't install unlock origin in chrome | Android. | | The big picture however, is that Firefox works for you, chrome | works for Google. | Zekio wrote: | anyone else find that only Firefox behaves properly when opening | up a saved state that opens multiple windows on multiple virtual | desktops. | | I've had problems with both Edge and Chrome changing the current | virtual desktop or behaving weird until I click at least once on | every window that opens | Snuupy wrote: | Shout out to librewolf which removes all the dumb Mozilla stuff | like Pocket/telemetry (default on)/etc. | | I wish firefox would have live captions for audio/video. It's one | of the few features Chrome has that I use regularly and miss on | FF. | pveierland wrote: | For the privacy conscious, the arkenfox user.js template provides | a nice structure for setting up Firefox settings [1]. This works | extra nicely if version controlled with your dotfiles and NixOS. | programs.firefox.profiles.<name>.extraConfig = builtins.readFile | ./user.js; | | One of my favorite settings is setting "keyword.enabled" to | false, to prevent leaking mistyped URLs to the search engine | provider. It feels much cleaner to explicitly specify the search | engine using e.g. "g<space>" when you want to search. | | [1] https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/ | tapper wrote: | If you use a screen r3eader then firefox is the best. Plus all | the addons that block all the shit on the web. ublock being the | best of them. | TheDesolate0 wrote: | The only thing I really hate about firefox is the build. Building | FF from scratch is a fucking nightmare. It's the only shitty | package that REQUIRES python 2 for building. | mdaniel wrote: | That information is outdated; I build FF from source a couple | of times a week, and use python3.9 for mach's python. I do | agree the build is special needs, made worse by all the rust, | but of the things I _really hate_ about Firefox, the build is | pretty low on that list | | The Chromium (and its derivatives) builds makes it clear they | have a compile farm of unlimited compute and ram, so it's just | "which kind of bad" I nowadays, I guess | soraminazuki wrote: | Browsers seem to require an order of magnitude more effort to | package than is typical that distros occasionally struggle to | keep up. It's the only software in which I use upstream | binaries out of preference. I assume it's a safer bet from a | security and/or performance perspective. | EchoReflection wrote: | Vivaldi browser https://vivaldi.com/ and Vivaldi browser snapshot | (both available for desktop and mobile) have become my | favorite(s). Support all Chrome(ium) extensions, highly | customizable, tab groups and tab-stacking. Been using both for | 5ish years and probably never going back. I like FF but its | insistince that I need to sign in from another device to verify | that I am me has always been a little bit...obnoxious. Google is | a joke in terms of privacy, no matter what they claim. Their | entire business model is selling ads, and they do that by | watching us. | GekkePrutser wrote: | I don't have the impression that Firefox is so much more | optimised. If anything I had the opposite impression (Chrome | using less CPU than Firefox). Makes sense too because Google has | a ton of money and Mozilla doesn't. | | Still I mainly use firefox and on most computers it's the only | browser I even have installed. | rvwaveren wrote: | I'm back to FF as well (after some Chrome years), and love it. | However, for my work I use Google Meet and online collaboration | tools such as Miro. Unfortunately, I only use Chrome for those | services because FF will jumpstart my Macbook fans quickly when | using Google Meet / FF. | eimrine wrote: | I use both browsers (mostly FF on powerful machines and Chrome | if I need to use Core2Duo or older) and I have an impression | that Firefox has some memory leaks. Chrome browser loaded with | as much tabs as allowed by my RAM can store its tabs forever. | But Firefox can not do the same, despite it has been written on | Rust. | shadowgovt wrote: | I'm glad it's working for her. I unfortunately had the opposite | experience... Some sites I use that are smooth enough on Google | Chrome just positively chugged on Firefox. I assume there's some | key differences in the rendering engines. | | If that's not a problem you have, then I can't think of a reason | not to use Firefox. | zahma wrote: | Is there really a killer feature of Chrome that justifies its use | over FF? I've been using Firefox and have never been disappointed | with it. I always just assumed that if you wanted privacy, it's | better to use Firefox over Chrome, Safari, or Brave. | neurostimulant wrote: | The killer features is the developer tools panel. It's so | packed with features it might as well be an IDE. I use Firefox | on all my devices for personal browsing, but I still use Chrome | for webdev works. | canistel wrote: | I would say that it is the other way around. | | Firefox provides essential functionalities that are altogether | missing in Chrome:- | | 1. _dom.event.clipboardevents.enabled_ - Enable copy paste | | 2. _dom.event.contextmenu.enabled_ - Always enable context menu | (right-click) | | 3. First party isolation. | mbrubeck wrote: | I'm a longtime Mozilla contributor, so I'm probably biased | toward Firefox, but there are still a few Chrome features that | I wish Firefox had, like: | | - Easier to create and use multiple profiles (somewhat | mitigated by Mozilla's multi-container add-on) | | - Google Translate integration | heavyset_go wrote: | There's a profile switcher extension: | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile- | switc... | [deleted] | evulhotdog wrote: | The profiles is what gets me. I have a personal bad | professional profile on my device and whenever clicking on a | link, it will open the page in the latest chrome window (re: | profile) that was last accessed and it works wonderfully. | Firefox profiles are a completely different | process/app/structure and it just really does not work | gracefully in any scenario I've tried. | mh- wrote: | This is also what keeps me from considering FF for a daily | driver. I have the same workflow and it's very easy to keep | straight. | | I have hotkeys assigned to each profile via macOS | shortcuts. Cmd-shift-# focuses a given profile. Or opens a | new window of that profile if there wasn't one already. | | Links from other apps always open in the most recent | profile. | | This makes it very simple to ensure links I click in | Slack/iMessage/etc open where I want them to. | | (Took the time to write this out in the hopes some Firefox | folks see this..) | lstamour wrote: | It's not built-in, but you can get Google Translate browser | extensions, and these are promoted on Firefox marketing | pages. | | Also, there's an offline translate extension being worked on | in open source: https://blog.mozilla.org/mozilla/local- | translation-add-on-pr... | kevincox wrote: | You can also make a bookmarklet that loads Google Translate | into the page. It isn't quite as nice as the auto-detect in | Chrome but very close. | | With the new offline translation support I actually prefer | this setup as I can try the local translate first, then if | the quality is bad or the language isn't supported I can | make the decision if I want to upload the page to Google. | petronio wrote: | Chrome has support for casting to Chromecasts. While not enough | reason to daily drive Chrome, it does come in handy for the | random video player that doesn't natively support it. | dmitryminkovsky wrote: | DevTools I think... although FF's are solid, Chrome's are just | that much better. | bit_logic wrote: | Firefox had the chance to remain relevant when it still had | some significant market share and if they had gone all in on ad | blocking (basically something like merge ublock origin directly | into Firefox). Unfortunately, since most of their revenue is | from Google, it could never happen due to conflict of interest. | abirch wrote: | Do you think major websites that are funded by ads would | simply block Firefox with merged ad blocker? | bit_logic wrote: | At this point, probably, but in the past when FF had 30% | market share? It would've at least forced a serious | discussion in the industry on what are acceptable ads. Or | maybe it would've been the impetus for a working | microtransaction system built into the browser. Instead, | they did nothing with their influence. | krolden wrote: | Chrome works better with google crap, by design. That's about | the only reason I ever use chromium. | system2 wrote: | If you are using gmail, syncing browsers with everything in | them is very easy. I do feel like the extension library of | chrome is also larger. | | FF is sluggish to open first time and if there is an update, | god help you. | CoolCold wrote: | Interesting..I can't even say I notice the update time..it | happens but never stand in my way that I'd notice it..under 1 | minute may be? Not sure to be honest. What's your experience | here? | PossiblyKyle wrote: | Its only killer feature to me is that websites are designed and | tested with a Chromium-first attitude. As a regular FF user I | might stumble upon a website that's quite buggy or straight up | doesn't work, which forces me to use Chrome for that specific | website. Other than that I don't really feel like there's | anything, and Edge is currently a better Chrome than Chrome | anyway. | | EDIT: and for the record, I'm still upset Microsoft didn't | choose FF and willingly increased Google's grasp | Ericson2314 wrote: | Yeah I'm still surprised MS did that too. | g3rv4 wrote: | I built an extension[1] so that I could choose which sites | are opened in Chrome... so that whenever I need to use Google | Meet, it automatically opens it on Chrome. | | [1]: https://onchrome.gervas.io | abirch wrote: | Microsoft had a huge hit with VSCode. They like | Blink/chromium. | amelius wrote: | Can you explain that for those not familiar with VSCode? | noman-land wrote: | I've been an FF user and developer of many frontends for | years and the amount of times I run into serious differences | between browsers is somewhere near zero. | CactusOnFire wrote: | I've been on team FF since the switch from IE like 20 years | ago- I agree sometimes there is additional jank, but I also | want to add that it is rare enough that it's been a non-issue | 99.9% of the time. | | Even then, I expect some of it is the fact I use an obscene | number of plug-ins to break most social media sites (to | prevent overuse). | ccmcarey wrote: | I flip flop between Firefox and Chrome constantly and for as | long as I can remember, Chrome has always just felt snappier | 13of40 wrote: | I have an older Surface tablet (that I recovered from a | recycle bin, TBH) and I've been using Chrome on it, but I was | annoyed by some of the latency and tried Firefox the other | day. It had all the problems of Chrome, plus jittery | scrolling and some extra random lags thrown in, so I noped | right out of it. I've got nothing against Firefox as a | concept, but it's apparently too hardware intensive for that | scenario. | porker wrote: | Start typing a Web address, hit tab and search that website. | | In Chrome it works reliably for me; in Firefox it works for a | small subset of the sites that work in Chrome. | bgro wrote: | Those experienced with web dev around here will tell you Chrome | is the main (or only) browser tested with most websites these | days. Some things might be slow or broken in Firefox. One | example situation that comes to mind is you can't scroll to the | bottom of the page on some sites in Firefox due to terrible | spaghetti layout design, so the submit button is not normally | reachable. Or it loads under a banner and becomes unclickable. | | There's also some sites that seem to actively make things worse | on purpose or refuse to load even if they otherwise do work. I | think YouTube was noted for doing this a few years ago. | | In other areas, small company sites may claim Firefox just | doesn't work on their site. Sometimes prompted because an | ancient version once was broken and the browser entry list was | never updated, or they simply forgot to account for it in the | grouping of "Internet Explorer or Other." I see this more often | than I would like. | behringer wrote: | I only had one site in recent memory that failed to load. I | put in a call to the support line and they fixed it. | | Tbh this whole idea that the web is broken on ff is not true, | tho it is true some web assembly apps fail to work properly | in my experience. | | I challenge anyone here to give an actual useful site that | fails to work properly in ff. | bit_logic wrote: | A recent example I found: https://tools.usps.com/rcas.htm | (the "Initializing Services" modal never goes away in FF, | works almost immediately in Chrome and Edge) | | This is just the most recent example I remember, | unfortunately there have been enough at this point that if | I'm doing anything important (such as filling and | submitting some important form), I do it in Chrome because | I don't want it to silently break in FF and cause other | issues with invalid or corrupt data submitted to the | service. | lol768 wrote: | > A recent example I found: | https://tools.usps.com/rcas.htm (the "Initializing | Services" modal never goes away in FF, works almost | immediately in Chrome and Edge) | | I can't reproduce this in FF 104. | bit_logic wrote: | The current release is 102.0.1, 104 is Beta: | https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar | nytesky wrote: | Multiple profiles in parallel. | | Does Firefox support that yet?? | nytesky wrote: | I know they have containers but maybe I'm using wrong as it's | cumbersome. | Zardoz84 wrote: | you have containers that are better that parallel profiles | celsoazevedo wrote: | A few months ago I tried to go back to Firefox and used | containers a lot. It works fine, but sometimes I'd pick the | wrong container, defeating the point of using containers | (eg: using Google Search for personal stuff while logged in | to a work Google Account). | | Containers are useful and we can do interesting things with | them (eg: temporary containers), but they don't replace | profiles. With a profile I don't have to mix personal | bookmarks with work bookmarks, I can use different | extensions/settings, a different theme so I don't use the | wrong profile by mistake, etc. | Yaina wrote: | So...there are profiles (about:profiles) and you can run them | in parallel. But it's not really feature meant for consumers | as it is in Chrome. | jcynix wrote: | Multiple profiles in parallel? Sure, you can start multiple | instances of Firefox in parallel from the command line and | use them with different profiles. I do that (on a Mac) | regularly. Works under Windows too, IIRC. | cpeterso wrote: | You don't need to use command line options to open new | profiles in Firefox. Just open the _about:profiles_ page. | thayne wrote: | Yes. But launching them isn't as easy as in chrome. Depending | on what you are using them for, firefox containers might be | sufficient. | commoner wrote: | Yes, Firefox supports multiple profiles in parallel. For a | Chrome-like user interface, try the Profile Switcher for | Firefox add-on: | | - Add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en- | US/firefox/addon/profile-switc... | | - Source: https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile- | switcher | Spooky23 wrote: | Firefox has traditionally given a Bronx cheer to IT making it | more difficult to manage updates and configuration. | | Maybe it's changed but I wrote them off years ago as a result. | easton wrote: | They added good GPO support a year or two ago AFAIK. And if | you can send a config file to your Mac/Linux boxes it can be | easily managed there too. | PascLeRasc wrote: | Some of us find Firefox incredibly useful for this reason. | When my company's intranet site is down you can't open a new | tab on Edge without it crashing trying to get there. | more_corn wrote: | Chrome profiles. I need a distinct browser environment for each | of my clients. | cpeterso wrote: | Firefox supports multiple profiles, though the UI is not as | streamlined as Chrome's. In Firefox, open _about:profiles_ to | create and open new profile windows. | teh_klev wrote: | The Firefox implementation is clunky. If they fixed that | then I'd readily switch to FF. | puchatek wrote: | There's a potentially a killer feature of Firefox that | justifies its use over Chrome: it seems to be impossible to | prevent youtube ads from playing on Chrome while in Firefox | just having ABP installed does the trick. | | (this claim is based on rather limited testing so please | correct me if I'm wrong) | spurgu wrote: | Not exactly "killer" but the ability to customize the keyboard | shortcut to focus the URL bar (to Cmd+D) is what keeps me from | switching to Firefox: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32130168 | kevincox wrote: | I would pay $100 for fully customizable keyboard shortcuts in | Firefox. Especially if they were Vim-like or could bind | arbitrary JavaScript to a key. | | I miss vimperator so much. | bufferoverflow wrote: | There are a couple of features in Chrome that I use every day | for web dev. | | 1) when the console is open, you can right-click on the reload | page button and choose hard reload. | | 2) when inspecting CSS properties, you can change many of them | by dragging them with the mouse left and right. That makes | positioning elements so much easier than guessing and adjusting | a dozen times. | mishafb wrote: | 1. You mean ctrl-shift-r? | BenjiWiebe wrote: | Ctrl F5, no? | louhike wrote: | You can drag CSS properties in Firefox too. | 6510 wrote: | Its in the ff dev tools settings. If the tools are open it | reloads everything. | raydev wrote: | > Is there really a killer feature of Chrome that justifies its | use over FF? | | I log into Chrome with my Gmail account and my browsing | history+passwords are carried across all the devices I use in a | typical week, Windows, Mac, iPhone. This is huge, as I rely on | history a lot. | | My last 3 jobs also had Google-based accounts, which means I'm | able to maintain two browser contexts where I don't dirty up my | personal history with boring work stuff. | | I assume Firefox probably offers account syncing, but there's | no reason to switch at this point. They lost me more than a | decade ago, I loved Chrome's out-of-the-box interface. It made | Firefox seem ancient and cluttered with all the unnecessary | buttons, and massive borders and tabs consuming precious screen | space. | | edit: And I'm now reading that Firefox supports multiple | browser contexts but requires some effort. No thanks. | [deleted] | kevincox wrote: | Firefox also supports multiple browsers including the Android | Password-Fill API. So you need to sign into your Sync account | rather than your Google account but then you get a nearly | identical feature set. | | Plus it is all end-to-end encrypted unlike the Google one. | potatototoo99 wrote: | Yikes. What if they ban your Google account? They have no | customer support to speak of. | PascLeRasc wrote: | What if they don't and I spent time micromanging my | computer for nothing? | encryptluks2 wrote: | You get account support with Google One or a Google | Workspace subscription. There are other support avenues as | well. Account bans do happen but for the most part it | appears that when it does, that the person who got banned | doesn't share the full story and people are more than happy | to jump on the Google hate train. Google is a successful | company and it annoys a lot of people that others don't | have the same hate that they do. | cowtools wrote: | If someone gets banned from google, they probably deserve | it even though I have no idea why it happened. | Ygg2 wrote: | Yell on them on Twitter and hope you start trending. | behringer wrote: | Ask for support on hn when a Google post trends. | AlexSW wrote: | For me, it's simply the grouping of tabs. I use both, but if I | ever want to keep my tabs organised (which is often) I cannot | use Firefox. | slowmovintarget wrote: | Really? There are extensions for that sort of thing. Your | extension list can even be synchronized across devices. | | Tree Style Tab, for example, allows control over how new tabs | are opened in relation to existing tabs if you don't like FF | defaults. Even if you don't like the tree view, you get a UI | that adds settings for how your tabs should open and stay | grouped. | Yiin wrote: | I personally dislike Firefox for its annoying "Looking for | updates" pop-up whenever I open the browser. That 3 second stop | generated more dislike from me for Firefox than bad privacy | policies of Chrome ever could. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | I use FF, but I have at times had to switch to Chrome for | extended periods of time when performance of FF was bad after a | particular release - maybe about 9-10 years ago? I think a lot | of people experienced the same thing at the time, moved off and | never moved back. | mh- wrote: | Anecdotally, I know several folks who got retina MacBooks | when that was new (2012 or so?) and had to switch off of | Firefox. For a while it didn't render correctly, and then | once it did the performance made it unusable for daily | driving. | bballer wrote: | The fact that the XHR/network console on Chrome doesn't format | JSON responses is insane. Your in the most popular browser in the | world and you have to copy paste the JSON into a formatter to | read it?? Really?? | whittingtonaaon wrote: | You just have to open the Preview tab. | wishfull wrote: | I wish I could switch to Firefox exclusively, but the commerce | websites I frequent only work correctly with Chrome. No doubt | it's due to laziness and lack of testing by these websites, but | it is reality. The worst part is the complete lack of warning | that these sites have not been tested on anything but Chrome, and | are not likely to function correctly. | adhoc_slime wrote: | techradar on mobile is truely an awful experience. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | Funny. I use Firefox Focus on mobile, and I didn't see any ads. | prmoustache wrote: | Any browser that do not have a multi-containers features is unfit | for use in 2022. | kretaceous wrote: | Along with obvious ones like uBlock Origin working perfectly, | etc., I have 2 other favorites: | | - Native reader mode | | - Native PiP mode for videos | | Yes, you can get extensions for this in Chrom(e/ium) but having | these as a native feature is really nice. | | Things I want to see in Firefox: | | - Good/extensible keybindings | | - Tab groups | | - Tab search | | EDIT: How do I break sentences to newline in HN without really | making a new paragraph? You know, for bullet points, etc. | tomxor wrote: | > Native reader mode | | This fixes most of the links on HN for me - I'm one of those | people who doesn't like the browser to save anything, so every | time I visit a site it's for the first time - so anyway reader | mode just cuts right through all the shit in one click, no | cookie banners, no subscribe banners, no interruption banners, | it gets straight to the content if it's there (sometimes even | cuts through shallow front end paywalls) - honestly if the site | looks horrible and reader mode doesn't work, close tab - can't | be arsed. | | It also makes far better use of screen space than most site | designs, e.g those common yet horrible headers with css | position: sticky. Pretty much every big news site is made | better by pulling any content into reader mode. | chrismorgan wrote: | > _Good /extensible keybindings_ | | https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/manage-extension-shortc... | is a little hidden, but gives you at least _some_ flexibility. | | > _Tab search_ | | https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-open-tabs- | firefo..., I use % in the address bar very regularly. | kretaceous wrote: | > I use % in the address bar very regularly. | | I use * for bookmarks and ^ for history but have never known | about this. :) | | Thanks! | | And yes, I do use extension shortcuts. Can't imagine my life | without Bitwarden or Tab Stash keybindings. | | See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1177108 to | know what I actually meant. | loloquwowndueo wrote: | If you need tab groups and tab search, you're using tabs wrong. | Bookmarks exist for that purpose and they do have search and | grouping (folders). | | Coworkers look at me like I'm a freak because I usually keep | fewer than 10 tabs open :) | kretaceous wrote: | > Coworkers look at me like I'm a freak because I usually | keep fewer than 10 tabs open :) | | Haha! That's me. My maximum is 15 and then my cleanliness | ghost kicks in. I said tab groups because I like organization | even if it's just 10 tabs. I honestly don't know why I said | tab search. | xyzzy_plugh wrote: | No. Tab groups are great, they allow you to bundle context | but persist it front and center. On a given day I might be | working on five different things, I context switch between | tab groups, make some progress within a group, and move | along. Bookmarks absolutely do not solve this issue. | Bookmarks are not ephemeral, and take considerably more time | to organize than simply using tabs naturally. | hansel_der wrote: | strong agree | | maybe sometime will come the realisation that a tab, a | bookmark and a history entry are basically the same | Georgelemental wrote: | Both have their use, I prefer bookmarks for separating tasks, | and tab trees for organizing information I am actively using | within a task. | Tagbert wrote: | I usually work on about 5 projects at a time. During a given | day I will switch between those projects at least once an | hour. With Panorama Tab Groups, I only see about 10-20 tabs | at a time and they are all specific to the current project. | when i switch, it does it all at once and the pages don't | reload. They retain their state. I can be editing something | in one tab group, switch to another tab group to check on a | dependency, and then switch back to the firs group to finish | editing. | | I do use bookmarks for longer term organization but my | workspace is all handled in tab groups. | lxgr wrote: | Bookmarks and tabs serve different use cases. | | The former don't preserve login state (and site state in | general) or scroll position, navigating between them requires | an internet connection and often uses significant data | (important when working from a metered and/or unreliable | connection like on a train or plane), just to name a few | differences. | solarkraft wrote: | Well, how are you persisting state? How do you quickly go | back? | jraph wrote: | Why would it be wrong if it works? | | I don't use groups (I liked them when tab groups were a | feature of Firefox). I search for tabs by typing stuff in the | awesome bar, that works. | | I always have a lot of tabs and kill everything from times to | times. But it's nice to reach a tab that's already loaded | when you need it, instead of reloading the page every time, | making a network access, using resources and having to wait. | A page being already open is also a hint that it's something | I accessed recently and that it's most likely the thing I | need. | | I don't want to waste my time managing bookmarks (actually | the sibling comment from lamacase captures my view very well | on this). That's not how I use a browser. But it's good they | are there for people like you who find a use for it. | lamacase wrote: | Ok, great idea. Now we just need an extension that auto- | bookmarks every newly opened page until I unbookmark it, and | a category of "super-bookmarks" to curate the pages I would | manually bookmark now. | layer8 wrote: | > I usually keep fewer than 10 tabs open | | Same here, and I don't even use bookmarks! History and custom | search shortcuts are enough. | agumonkey wrote: | seconded, all of your list | Tagbert wrote: | I use Panorama Tab Groups. It lets me create groups of tabs | (obviously) for each project. Each project has 10-20 tabs and I | can quickly switch between them. It means that most times, I | only have 10-20 tabs visible. Makes things much easier to | navigate and keep track of. | dmytrish wrote: | Tree Style Tabs solved the tab grouping problem for me. I like | to put it on the right and I'm looking for a way to have the | tab bar hidden. | | Tab search exists: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search- | open-tabs-firefo..., also you type % into the address bar to | start searching over tabs. Not sure if this covers your needs, | though. | somishere wrote: | Not quite a hidden tab bar but I modded the TST / FF chrome | so only active or recently active tabs show (~3min timer) per | personal preference: https://gist.github.com/theprojectsometh | ing/6813b2c27611be03... | appletrotter wrote: | Is there a way to make TST look nicer? I'm sure a lot of | people appreciate its UI, but it really stands out to me in a | negative way. | solarkraft wrote: | I like using Sidebery, which on top of feeling lighter- | weight offers a bunch of themes, including a very clean | one. | pessimizer wrote: | People hate the UI. It was clean before the transition to | webextensions, now it's messy and can only be fixed through | futzing with userChrome.css (with no help from mozilla.) | lordnacho wrote: | TST is literally the killer feature for FF. It's actually the | only reason I went to FF, it was getting out of hand to have | all my tabs across the top, and it makes little sense with | modern screens being so wide that giving up a little | horizontal space to get legible titles is absolutely worth | it. | | Someone in Chrome/Edge/Safari must be thinking about doing | this, I don't know why it hasn't been cloned. Can't be too | hard to do. | RF_Savage wrote: | Edge actully does clone it. Which makes Edge quite usable | for some things. | UncleSlacky wrote: | Vivaldi does this too. | hansel_der wrote: | > I don't know why it hasn't been cloned | | it's a elitist feature. pretty sure that most ppl on the | internet don't know what a tab is. | | opera had vertical, grouped tabs over twenty years ago. | Tsiklon wrote: | Edge has vertical tabs but no grouping by parent tab. | sathyabhat wrote: | Edge does have grouping (might be behind edge://flags) | travbrack wrote: | I can't overstate how much this extension has benefitted my | work life. It's an absolute game changer. | [deleted] | pessimizer wrote: | > TST is literally the killer feature for FF. | | Which raises the question: why would FF sabotage it? Why | isn't it easy to hide the default tabs, and why does the | sidebar have the name of the extension providing it stuck | at the top? | | They had all of the warning in the world about how | important this extension was to people years before finally | removing XUL, half a decade later you still can only repair | the display problems through CSS that isn't kept consistent | from version to version, and feature requests/bug reports | on the issue are filled with antagonism from the project. | agumonkey wrote: | I never got to leverage TST, something about the UX bothers | me. I have better flow with Tab Stash. Also TST suffers | with my hoarding habits and the subtree features have bare | naked UI. | vin047 wrote: | From the extension description, Tab Stash seems to save | all open tabs as bookmarks. But this feature is already | built into Firefox. Am I missing something? I've never | used either of these extensions (will be trying out TST) | so forgive my ignorance if I'm missing something obvious! | agumonkey wrote: | you can stash things as you want, it stacks them in a | daily stash by default that you can rename, move links in | and out of previous stashes | | with TST whenever I need to reorder/re-group things, it's | a pain (I still appreciate TST a lot) | [deleted] | Kaze404 wrote: | You can hide the tab bar through userstyles css. It can't be | done from Firefox itself unfortunately, but once you set it | up you never have to do it again. | chakkepolja wrote: | I prefer Chrome's tab groups over TST, its simpler and needs | less organizing IMO. But needs some more keyboard shortcuts. | timerol wrote: | When I saw the title of this article, I assumed it had to be | about Tree Style Tags. No other browser feature has so | immediately become a feature I must have so quickly. | | Privacy and ad-blocking are great, but I could see myself | being lazy and switching to a browser with a better UX, if | one existed. But you'll have to take Tree Style Tabs from my | cold, dead hands | solarkraft wrote: | It's pretty much the only reason I'm staying with Firefox. | Mozilla has pissed me off often enough for me to attempt to | jump ship, but there's just nowhere to go. | | (I'm aware of Orion, but when I last used it I found it to | still have performance and polish issues) | dandanua wrote: | > I'm looking for a way to have the tab bar hidden | | 1. Go to `about:config` and set | toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets true | | 2. Go to `about:support` and find your profile folder | | 3. Create subfolder `chrome` there | | 4. Create file `userChrome.css` in `chrome` folder | | 5. Put this text in it: #main-window | #TabsToolbar { visibility: collapse !important; | } | anotheryou wrote: | also check out "sidebery" as a modern alternative that does a | bit more | Moru wrote: | Am I doing something wrong? Every time I try to move | something into a group, it just gets deselected and I have | to select them again and then sometimes it works to move | into a group. | glitchcrab wrote: | I was also going to recommend Sidebery - I switched to it | from TST a while back and I've been very impressed with it. | wussboy wrote: | Yup. Sidebery is now Firefox's killer feature. Won't live | without it. | TheArcane wrote: | Tab search doesn't work across containers afaik and it's | therefore pretty useless | heavyset_go wrote: | The address bar searches open tabs by default. | hawski wrote: | Simple Tab Groups is how tab groups should have been done in | Firefox from the start. I think if they would be like that they | would not have to rip them out. Tab search or rather filtering | is included and is such a splendid addition. Also automatic | backup of groups is a fine feature, but so far I only needed to | use it for migration. | | https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/simple-tab-groups/ | contravariant wrote: | I'd like to add that it combines very nicely with Gesturefy, | defining a couple of mouse gestures to switch between tab | groups (either through a small popup or switching moving | back/forth) is what got me to actually use the tab groups | meaningfully. | tyingq wrote: | >EDIT: How do I break sentences to newline in HN without really | making a new paragraph? You know, for bullet points, etc. | | Blank line / new paragraph is really the only option. Short | bullet points might look better with the "code" option of | preceding with two spaces, like: - this | - that | | But long lines in that format force horizontal scrolling for | some mobile users. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc | QuantumGood wrote: | Hacker News text formatting news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc/ | | Blank lines separate paragraphs. | | Text surrounded by asterisks is italicized. To get a literal | asterisk, use * or *. | | Text after a blank line that is indented by two or more spaces | is reproduced verbatim. (This is intended for code.) | | Urls become links, except in the text field of a submission. | | If your url gets linked incorrectly, put it in <angle brackets> | and it should work. | | Alt-7 on the number pad give you a bullet "*", Alt-0151 an em | dash "--" | slowmovintarget wrote: | Tab search in FF: Type a percent sign and a space in the | address bar, your search is now on tabs. | | % - Tab search | | ^ - History search | | * - Bookmark search | for1nner wrote: | I find multi-account-containers* incredibly useful re: tab | groups. Coupled with a few pinned tabs (email), I generally | always know where to look for what when I have the browser | open. | | *https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi- | account... | GekkePrutser wrote: | Yeah this is an amazing feature. I never understood why they | moved it to an addon. As part of the browser itself it would | be easier to use. | stop50 wrote: | There are a few addons that use the builtin feature. | gmiller123456 wrote: | >Tab groups | | Please no. I actually switched to Firefox on mobile just | because I couldn't get tab groups to stay disabled in Chrome. | kactus wrote: | What do you dislike about tab groups? Or is Chrome's | implementation on mobile not good? | | I think the current design is ugly. The way Edge handles them | in the vertical tabs sidebar looks a lot better than the way | other Chromium derivatives handle them in the tab strip, but | still not the best. I like Vivaldi's implementation better, | but the UI is relatively laggy. I miss old Opera. | solarkraft wrote: | I find them unpredictable. I don't know when something will | open in a new group, I don't know how I can move a tab out | of/into a group. I find it to be kind of a mess. And of | course it was shoved at me without even asking whether I | want it. | | (Thanks in advance for the solution. I mostly use Firefox | anyway) | gmiller123456 wrote: | Been long enough that I don't really remember the details, | but I found it a lot harder to find what I was looking for. | brasic wrote: | Chrome has a native reader mode as well, it's just feature | flagged off for some reason: | | https://knowtechie.com/how-to-enable-google-chrome-reader-mo... | bbarnett wrote: | Probably, because there are no ads there. | cm2187 wrote: | Also unblockable contextual menus (by pressing SHIFT). | | But on the downside no translate tool (though I read it is | coming). | m-p-3 wrote: | https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/firefox- | translation... | | Operates entirely offline. | cfjgvjh wrote: | The tool is already out and works pretty okay for the | supported languages. (At least enough for me to find the page | I'm looking for.) | | Bonus points for it being offline. | | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox- | trans... | ichik wrote: | There is tab search (and history, and bookmarks for that | matter) from the address bar (i.e. typing `% foo` will search | all tabs for `foo`). I don't know if it's turned on by default, | but you can set it up from "Search shortcuts" settings section. | alterneesh wrote: | Regarding tab groups, there's two things that I've found that | seems to have solved my requirements: - Workona (this is an | extension for chrome) - Arc (https://thebrowser.company/) | | Both essentially have the idea of "spaces" for web browsers. | uoaei wrote: | I break up my tab groups into separate windows (by subject | matter) and that seems to work great. | _Algernon_ wrote: | I want to see extensions which change how the user interacts | with the browser (eg. Vimium or gesturify) work on browser | internal pages such as settings, extensions or reader view. I | know its not going to happen because "security". | banana_giraffe wrote: | For what it's worth, Chrome has a reader mode, just hidden | behind an experimental flag, and a native PiP mode for videos, | accessible with the media controls icon that appear when a | video is playing. | snthd wrote: | >Native reader mode | | The unremovable "floating" controls are visually distracting. | ikurei wrote: | > Yes, you can get extensions for this in Chrom(e/ium) but | having these as a native feature is really nice. | | I've been using Brave for a while and I'm considering going | back to FF, partly to get out of Chromium. | | However, this is a point I don't get. What do I care if these | features are native or plug-ins? My Brave plugins are synced, | so whenever I install Brave and set it up I immediately. If the | plugin is well done, there is no difference, and for people who | don't care about that particular feature it could be less bloat | to have it on a feature. | | Specifically for the Reader mode, the Chromium Addon I use | comes from the Firefox code for the same functionality, so it's | just as good. Kudos to FF, OSS is awesome. | yonrg wrote: | Sideberry is a great addon for tab tree, grouping and container | mgmt. | | Tab search, keybinds, and many many other handy stuff, can be | done in vimperator. | bzxcvbn wrote: | Not sure this will resonate with everyone, but Edge has both of | these features built-in :). | kretaceous wrote: | It definitely does with me. I used Edge when I was using | Windows and I liked it! | | I went back to Windows after almost 2 years for work and MS | has managed to bloat it too. Don't understand why I need a | Math solver. Edge bar is annoying. Favorites and bookmarks | are 2 separate things? | | I turned them all off obviously but defaults matter. | just_for_you wrote: | I went from disliking Edge, to liking it, and then slowly | disliking it again as they added bloat to it. | | What turned me off from it was when I lost a year's worth | of (unimportant) bookmarks and history. One day I opened it | up and it decided to kindly sign me in automatically | (probably detected I was signed into an MS site in- | browser), and it wanted to automatically sync all my | history, auto-fill info and passwords to Microsoft's sync | servers. I immediately disconnected my account to stop | this, and then it deleted my Edge profile afterwards as a | further courtesy. | | I understand that these two behaviors are probably | Features, but I don't like the feeling of losing control of | my software. And now these features like MSFT Rewards, | coupon services, credit card services, and the "Bing Bar" | (or whatever you call it) are just too much for me. Not to | mention every PC I use Edge on tends to assault my eyes | with political propaganda since Edge's New Tab page | defaults to biased news outlets. | xLink wrote: | Edge is just another Chrome clone at this point. | jackosdev wrote: | If you're into Vim, this is a fantastic extension for | keybindings: https://addons.mozilla.org/en- | US/firefox/addon/tridactyl-vim... | kretaceous wrote: | I should be clear. What I was referring to when I said | `keybindings` is browser/developer keybindings that are not | yet made configurable. | | There's been an open issue for 7 years asking for a shortcut | key for the eyedropper[0]. The navigation between developer | panels is also a bit tedious. The page focus key, F6, is not | configurable. | | These are some instances I was thinking when I said I wanted | good keybinding support. I'll be really willing to try an | extension that achieves these but it's really the browser's | job. | | With that said, I've tried a bunch of these extensions in the | past! I'm not a vim guy so I settled with Link Hints[1] for | in-page navigation. I cannot recommend it enough for non-vim | guys. It's really underrated. | | 0: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1177108 1: | https://lydell.github.io/LinkHints/ | the_pwner224 wrote: | Thanks for the mention of F6, I had been looking for a page | focus key for a while to restore focus after switching to | the address bar. | | I've discovered that "ctrl-f esc" also works; focus goes | back to the page when the search bar closes. Convenient if | you have capslock remapped to escape. | 5e92cb50239222b wrote: | > focus key, F6 | | JFYI, Alt+D and Ctrl+L also work. | kretaceous wrote: | These only focus the address bar, no? I want the other | way round. I want to focus the page when the focus is | outside it, like the address bar. | [deleted] | pure_simplicity wrote: | Tab groups and search are there in the form of this excellent | extension. Not native, but so well integrated that it may as | well be. | pure_simplicity wrote: | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/simple-tab- | gr... | frogperson wrote: | My biggest complaint with Firefox is the upgrade nag. I get it, I | need to upgrade, why can't they just put a reminder in the corner | instead of insisting I click a dismiss button every hour. | chii wrote: | there's an easy way to fix this problem: | https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-usi... | | firefox supports a policy.json to turn off upgrade nagging via | the `ManualAppUpdateOnly` key: { | "policies": { "ManualAppUpdateOnly": true } | } | zamadatix wrote: | As a heads up though as suggested by the name | "ManualAppUpdateOnly" doesn't just disable the notification | it completely disables the entire auto-update system. Not | only will you not get notifications about updates you will | not get updates at all until you remember to check the about | dialog or manually download them. This is intended for | environments that have managed packages where the browser | doesn't need to update itself. | pessimizer wrote: | > Not only will you not get notifications about updates you | will not get updates at all until you remember to check the | about dialog or manually download them. | | What if you feel like you can handle this not particularly | difficult problem? | zamadatix wrote: | Then activate the setting and enjoy. If what you actually | want is silent manual updates not just for the update | notifications to go away then it's the perfect option for | you. | ffpip wrote: | If you are using Nightly (which updates twice a day), you can | turn on "Show fewer update notification prompts" in your | settings (about:preferences#general) which removes the update | nag and puts a small reminder in the top right corner like you | asked. | mdaniel wrote: | I am cognizant it may not be universally true, but often those | updates come with CVEs attached to them, a bad side effect of | exposing several JITed virtual machines to the wild Internet. I | know such advice from random folks depends heavily upon ones | threat model, but bear the security consequences in mind, and | that goes double if it wouldn't just be your network that may | get taken over in an incident | [deleted] | gverrilla wrote: | Chrome is horrible you can't even click on a tab sound icon to | mute it, you have to right click and select mute. All Google does | puts in first place their interests, not users. Fuck these | people. | Shadonototra wrote: | This sounds like an AD more than a recommendation | | Everything listed can be achieved by using uBlock Origin | | There is a reason why people abandoned Firefox, Mozilla refused | to fix the performance issues, they refused to do something about | the toolbar bloat, the browser became a nest for | adwares/malwares, a security and privacy nightmare | | and later they refused to abandon the Google deal | | Google came with chrome and everyone switched, safe, efficient, | reliable, and it stayed with the same UX since the beginning, a | win for the users | | Privacy? they don't share your data with anybody, there are no | 3rd party addons or 3rd party links, unlike with Firefox for | example (Pocket, Google, Duckduckgo, and various Ads in your home | page) | | Chrome or Chromium is the way to go if you care about: | | - security | | - privacy | | - battery usage | | Concerning their position of power, i don't buy it, Apple and | WebKit have a greater impact imo and now that Microsoft is | working on Chromium, it no longer is a viable argument | Kiro wrote: | I'm making browser games and there are some still some | performance issues that make my game unplayable in Firefox, e.g. | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=925025 | | I really don't want to have a "works best in Chrome" banner but | until Firefox catches up I don't have much choice (don't get me | started on Safari, I've already given up). | the_gipsy wrote: | I assure you, if you had developed against firefox first, you | would have found "performance bugs" on chrome. | | Source: I developed a web game. | jlokier wrote: | I agree, and will add that with ordinary HTML+CSS (not a | game), I've occasionally seen Chrome/WebKit rendering bugs | which I didn't see when testing during development with | Firefox. | | Testing in Firefox is a pretty good way to approximate | standards compliance, and then you have to deal with bugs | when running on Chrome, if you do it that way around. | koonsolo wrote: | For me, it seems with the latest update of firefox, some | textures are not rendered properly. All works fine in the | other browsers. | | Before that, some other update gave issues with some | certificate. | | Looking at all the issues this browser causes, and the very | low usage, I'm not spending time tracking down what is going | wrong. | | Safari on iOS is such another problem child, but used high | enough to justify the time to investigate and fix. | the_gipsy wrote: | The low usage is a fair point, but "all the issues this | browser causes" simply isn't true. You would say the same | about chrome if you developed for Firefox first. | koonsolo wrote: | Having updates breaking stuff is still a different beast. | rascul wrote: | Was that back when Mozilla removed the WoSign and | StartCom for doing shady stuff? | | https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/10/24/distrusting- | new... | koonsolo wrote: | No it was early this year so my guess was it was this one | (happened at a user): | https://support.mozilla.org/hsb/questions/1361315 | hansel_der wrote: | >Looking at all the issues this browser causes, and the | very low usage, I'm not spending time tracking down what is | going wrong. | | been hearing this for about a decade now... | koonsolo wrote: | Firefox usage in 2012: 24%. Now: 7.8% on desktop, almost | non-existent on mobile, which brings it to a total of | about 4%. | | Your point of "been hearing this" is what? | koonsolo wrote: | Same here. Plus, I saw today that firefox doesn't support the | file API while Chrome, Safari and Edge do. | | If you look at the usage numbers, it just makes no sense to | support this browser anymore. | koonsolo wrote: | Wow, stating facts gets you downvoted. Nice one! | | Here are the facts: | | - multiple game devs have issues with Firefox | | - Firefox doesn't support File System Access API | https://developer.mozilla.org/en- | US/docs/Web/API/File_System..., other browsers do. | | - Usage of Firefox is very low | | Live with reality people. | crtasm wrote: | > If you look at the usage numbers, it just makes no sense | to support this browser anymore. | | It seems the reality is that people disagree with your | opinion. | koonsolo wrote: | Probably the 4% of people still using Firefox, highly | represented here on HN. | | Still doesn't change my assessment it's not worth it. | | Edit: especially since according to experience, when | Firefox doesn't work for users, they just switch to | another browser. | rascul wrote: | If it doesn't work in Firefox then I don't go to that | site anymore. There's probably 2 other people in the | world like me. Maybe 3. | koonsolo wrote: | The thing is, as a solo developer, you just have to be | ruthless with cost/benefit. Either I give the same | experience to maybe 2% of the users, or an overall | improvement to 98%. Is it ideal? No. But a lot of things | are about tradeoffs and deciding where you spend your | resources. | | Ok, people here don't like it. They can make their own | tradeoffs. But in my opinion my choice is not that crazy. | rascul wrote: | I understand. Not knocking you for it. Just letting you | know there's 3 or 4 of us out there ;) | muizelaar wrote: | I've closed that bug as the problem as the originally reported | problem is fixed by hardware accelerating filters as part of | WebRender. Do you have more details on the performance problem | that you're seeing? | Kiro wrote: | Looks like WebRender has been enabled by default as of | Firefox 92 (September 7, 2021) so that's great news! I think | most of my performance problems were due to filters so I'm | eager give it a try. I saw your comment on Bugzilla and will | do that if I'm still experiencing issues after testing it. | Thank you! | solarkraft wrote: | Ah, one of those eternal issues. I've seen a fair share of | them, often well over a decade old. | butz wrote: | How about adding "performance" mode and disabling advanced | effects for worse performing systems? It could be done | automatically, or by adding an option. So instead of "works | best in Chrome", you would add short instructions how to set | it. I think some players even prefer less resources demanding | version of your game, especially on phones, where battery life | is important. | Kiro wrote: | It's a good idea but unfortunately the effect is instrumental | to certain parts of the gameplay. However, as per the sibling | comment it looks like it may actually have been fixed as of | end of last year: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32129916 | | I do have some other problems only happening on Firefox that | I don't know the cause of (so probably something I can fix) | but I certainly would like to remove that banner. Mozilla | fixing the filter issues is a huge leap toward that and gives | me motivation to look into the other problems. | ghoomketu wrote: | Same for me, my app used the html5 webspeech api and the text | to speech and speech to text on Ff was nothing compared to | chrome. So had to put that dreaded banner myself. | | I hope things have changed now and ff is just as good as chrome | now with the recent progress in ML and so many good open source | projects for tts and dictation. | rob_c wrote: | Only people left using it are now tech people and they've started | dropping decisions that lead mainly to bad profits... Albeit | slowly... | [deleted] | esharte wrote: | Firefox is worth it alone for its 'reader view'. Especially on | Android. And it's the easiest way to get around the likes of the | NYT weak paywalls. | zitsarethecure wrote: | Reader view is great, but it seems to work on less and less | sites every day. I don't know what the mechanism is by which | the browser decides whether to allow reader view rendering, but | it seems to not work on about half the sites I wish I could use | it on these days. | oxff wrote: | I use Vivaldi, it is slowest of them all, but it is the best | browser overall ime. | stavros wrote: | Is it that slow? I've recently switched to it and it doesn't | feel slower, though I am indeed very impressed by it. | quijoteuniv wrote: | I use all of them. Edge for work pages/corporate intranet, Chrome | for spe ific testing and customer remote, and Firefox with Ublock | for web surfing. Duckduck for most and google search if I do not | get what I am looking for. | retrocryptid wrote: | Mmm... Firefox left me cold. But I have to admit I am | increasingly suspicious of Chrome. My offspring just installed | the latest version of Opera after a year or two with Brave. | | So... not sure Firefox works for me (though... dang... it's | JavaScript implementation has come a long way) but solidly | support the idea of finding something other than Chrome. | | Oh. Also. Most of my news browsing I now do with lynx in a | terminal window. I see no ads, autostart videos or kruft. And HN | doesn't look too bad in Lynx. | firfog wrote: | Same here, I recently installed Firefox on a new Android device | and am very much enjoying the privacy features, particularly the | adblocking capability via add-ons. | | The only three things I miss from Chrome are: | | - swiping down to refresh page | | - a Delete action on the menu of text box selections | | - the option to run webpages as separate apps | | For that last one, I do use Chrome for a couple of sites (Wordle | and Quordle), but Firefox is excellent for everything else. | llacane wrote: | 3 work on my machine (Firefox 102 on Android 12) if the site is | a PWA else it lets you to have a link in your home screen. | | The option is "Add to home screen"/"Install app" in the menu. | | -- | | Also about 1: did you tried to put the bar in the bottom? | terinjokes wrote: | Firefox removed PWA support on desktop. It still exists on | Android. | nathias wrote: | I can't go back because chrome doesn't allow customization that I | really need. | sydney6 wrote: | Hacker's First Aid Kit: Firefox ESR with Raymond Gorhill's uBlock | Origin. | pachico wrote: | I would love to switch to Firefox but Brave seems to be really | faster. I'll give it a try again. | zamadatix wrote: | For me the containers on desktop and uBlock origin support on | moble are the big features of Firefox. I was glad containers made | it in considering usage must be pretty low since even just "user | has an extension" is less common than "user has no extensions". | mouzogu wrote: | I find FF slower than Chrome. Tried to use it, ported all my | preferences but it just feels heavier. | | Brave with uMatrix works well for me. Disabled the metrics and | crypto stuff. | frickinLasers wrote: | This story is on the front page of Reddit. I wonder if it will | make a dent in Chrome's market share. | boomboomsubban wrote: | Even if everybody that saw it on reddit switched to Firefox, I | bet it'd gain a fraction of a percent. | ph4evers wrote: | I really enjoy Firefox. Only time I use Chrome is for Google | Meet, that really sucks in Firefox | weetniet wrote: | As mentioned by others, the recommended list of extensions in the | article is a bit outdated. These days not much more than uBlock | Origin is needed for a good configuration, with the addition of | maybe CanvasBlocker. | zahllos wrote: | True but I use some other extensions anyway. They are: | | - Multi Account Containers - does exactly what it says on the | tin. I load Google stuff inside a Google container for example, | and banking websites all get their own container only used for | that purpose. | | - Auto Cookie Optout, with their config added to uBlock Origin. | Basically automatically clicks "essential cookies only" | everywhere it can (it helps to allow loading of these sites | automatically in uBlock and uMatrix, otherwise it can't). | Possibly not an issue if you're outside the EU, though. | | - uMatrix so I have some level of control over what loads when | I want it. | | - ClearURLs - takes out tracking and unnecessary URL | parameters. uMatrix tends to block and warn if you do click one | and you can find the dest_url without parameters on its warning | page, where ClearURLs fails. | | - Decentraleyes - injects resources instead of loading them | from CDNs. Quite mixed results with this but it is still on the | list for the moment. | | - Sideberry, basically another tree style tabs. | | Nice testing sites for these extensions are basically any | newspaper website or shopping website, which are all thoroughly | infested with trackers and such. | aftergibson wrote: | Just a heads up, with umatrix no longer being developed, you | can actually enable the same functionality in unlock origin. | zahllos wrote: | Ahhh thanks! Didn't realize umatrix had been discontinued. | Well, scratch that from the list, I've enabled it in uBO. | Looks like the box to check is 'I am an advanced user'. | Thiez wrote: | > Basically automatically clicks "essential cookies only" | everywhere it can | | But does it also object to 'legitimate' interests? | zahllos wrote: | I think it opts out as maximally as possible. The project | is on github: | https://github.com/CodyMcCodington/AutoCookieOptout | wooque wrote: | I tried to like Firefox, I really do, I tried to use it as | primary browser, but it's just noticeable less snappy and slower | than anything Chromium based, so I always return back to Chromium | (now Brave). | | Not to mention that I always hit some glitches in sites or some | things not working in Firefox because developers didn't even | bother to test on Firefox or just plainly refuse to support it. | a-dub wrote: | this has been my experience. i even prefer some parts of the | firefox ui. but for the reasons you mention, the net result is | that then i have to run two browsers which means twice the | work, complexity and risk. | | i hate this. i really want firefox to succeed and i really | appreciate their stated goals with respect to privacy, and | their significant contributions to the internet commons. | jiripospisil wrote: | That pretty much sums it up. The only thing I regularly miss is | Firefox's Awesome bar (Omni bar) - its fuzzing engine works | much better and seems to include the entire browsing history. | AdvancedCarrot wrote: | Will say as well that Brave is much, much better out of the box | for privacy than Firefox. Even with uBlock Origin and other | privacy-friendly extensions, Firefox doesn't offer much in the | way of anti-fingerprinting. | wooque wrote: | I agree, Brave has pretty good privacy protections, anti- | fingerprinting and ad-blocking out of the box. No need to | install dozen of extensions and custom user.js like in | Firefox. Only extension that I need is password manager and | I'm good to go. | | Brave on Android is also best Android browser I used. | hepinhei wrote: | Firefox has great privacy features today. The containers, also | Relay which allows you to create email alias. We all can wait | some ms more to open a web page and support an independent | browser | [deleted] | k__ wrote: | Firefox was good a few years ago. | | Somehow they managed to get on-par with Chrome performance. So, I | switched back to FF after being a Chrome user for years. | | But they couldn't keep up, so I was forced to leave them again. | | I went for Brave, because I wanted to reduce my use of Google | products and I couldn't be happier. | | Chrome performance, good adblock integrated, Tor, IPFS, and | crypto wallet out of the box. Awesome piece of tech. | NaturalPhallacy wrote: | I've been on brave for years now. Two vital extensions though: | | uBlock Origin | | Sponsorblock - skips sponsored segments/outros/self promotion | etc that has spread like a plague across YouTube | k__ wrote: | Thanks for these suggestions | bzmrgonz wrote: | I was made to believe(from my readings) that it's not the browser | that tracks you, it's the corporations who track you by your | browsers ID(signature). Therefore, the best we can do, is to use | chrome for google stuff and facebook(the 2 biggest offenders) and | use FF for anything else(meaningful/serious stuff). Additionally, | get the container-tab addon for firefox for super secure | engagements like banking and other sensitive connections. | JshWright wrote: | TouchID support for WebAuthn is the last thing I need to make the | switch for my daily driver browser. I used Firefox for years, but | being able to use TouchID for auth/MFA is just such a huge | quality of life improvement for me that it keeps me on Chrome. | | Fortunately it looks like there has been at least a little | movement on this recently (bumped from a P4 to P2) | | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1536482 | CoolCold wrote: | Afair couple of times I was using fingerprint auth (that'd | touchid if I understand things right) in Firefox. Very rare, | but definitely had it as it was big WOW for me. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Yes WebAuthn (passwordless mode) really needs to be fixed on | Firefox. | | It _still_ doesn 't work on Mac or Linux.. FFS. | sivakon wrote: | Firefox is amazing except when working with electron based web | apps. Most of the note taking apps I use only have chrome | extensions. So now, I have to use both. | natex wrote: | Recently, I've researched browser battery consumption for | laptops. Every test I've seen rates Firefox the worst out of the | big 3 or 4. Are there any settings/extensions that may have been | overlooked for these reviews that can be used to help Firefox be | more energy efficient? | solardev wrote: | Meanwhile, most of the internet started using Chrome and can | never go back to Firefox. | spotlesstofu wrote: | Mozilla plugin to Translate web sites without using the cloud | https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/firefox-translation... | dabedee wrote: | Agreed, and I would add that I have been keeping my bookmarks & | tags synced on all devices using Firefox Sync for several years | now without any issues. It's just great. Same for passwords. | There is a in-depth article about the privacy features of their | design [1]. If you add containers[2], then there is really no | reason to use Chrome. | | [1] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ | | [2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi- | account... | onelovetwo wrote: | multi-account container is *chef's kiss | | If only it synced with my vpn so each container got its own ip. | everfrustrated wrote: | Mozilla VPN missed a real trick by being an additional client | and not (also) integrating it into the browser/container | natively. | | Was a real chance to do something better rather than just | doing the minimum (rebrand an existing VPN client app) and | potentially pulling in a new customer base. | CoolCold wrote: | Not exactly the same, but there is FoxyProxy extension which | allows to use different proxies based on URI (domain). So you | can point your uris to go to outside world via different | proxies (say `ssh -D ...` to vps or your vpn gateway or ..) | | Technically as it's possible to use multiple profiles you may | even be able to configure different sets for the same URLs. | doliveira wrote: | Firefox is worth it if only for the Ctrl-Tab going in recently | used order. I hate using Chrome and needing to use the mouse to | actually find a tab | [deleted] | layer8 wrote: | It's mystifying why any browser would choose not to have that | feature. It's basic ergonomics of tabbing UIs. | chrismorgan wrote: | Firefox is literally the only program of any kind that I can | think of that even _supports_ MRU Ctrl+Tab. _Windowed_ UIs, | sure, MRU is conventional, but tabbed? | layer8 wrote: | All IDEs and editors I use support MRU order. | | IE also had/has MRU tabs. | zamadatix wrote: | Chrome uses an alternative tab workflow brought up by | alt/cmd+shift+a which will bring up a list of tabs in last used | order. You can then navigate via keyboard or just type to | search tabs. | | That doesn't explain why the other method isn't at least an | option in Chrome but I figured it was worth mentioning for | those that missed the functionality. | chrismorgan wrote: | Huh, you're the first person I've encountered liking that | behaviour. Since Firefox switched to MRU Ctrl+Tab by default, | _every_ Firefox user I know (whether a long-time user, one | migrating from another browser, or someone for whom it is their | first browser by virtue of their youth, and I have at least one | in each category) has successfully found and toggled that | option. | | I must admit, however, that I do have Tab Flip for Tree Style | Tab, with Shift+F2 to switch between the current and most | recently selected tabs (like Ctrl+6 in Vim to toggle between | the most recent buffers), and have added similar elsewhere, | with Meta+F2 to switch between most recent workspaces in the | Sway or i3 window managers: bindsym Mod4+F2 | workspace back_and_forth bindsym Mod4+Shift+F2 move | container to workspace back_and_forth, workspace back_and_forth | | I wouldn't want to be without at least this single-level MRU in | my browser or window manager. (On more traditional window | managers, you normally have Alt+Tab or [?]- and [?]` which are | all some form of more extensive MRU list, though I find macOS's | application-level treatment bizarre and extraordinarily | frustrating because of how cripplingly limiting it is if you | work with multiple multi-window apps and want to see a window | of each. And yeah, it's easy to see when reflecting on Alt+Tab | why Firefox went the way they did with Ctrl+Tab, making it | behave similarly. But I haven't previously found anyone | actually liking it.) | Aardwolf wrote: | Huh, this is the first time I heard that FF supports MRU, and | it's amazing (well except that it's only current window, see | below)! I don't know why it was turned off by default. | | MRU should always be the default, this is also what IDE's do, | and alt+tab does with main windows. | | What is even the point of ctrl+tab cycling to next tab? You | got to press it dozens of times to go back to the original | tab... Why would anyone use that? You can use ctrl+pgdn and | pgup to go to next/previous which is more sensible for this. | | So disappointingly, now I turned this feature on in FF, and | I'm disappointed to see that it only cycles through most | recent tab of _current_ window. I wish it would go through | any window. I have always dozens of windows with dozens of | tabs each, and I find myself sometimes just opening the same | URL again due to not bothering trying to find back a tab I | was in just a few minutes ago due to not having a ctrl+tab | that goes to most recent tab in any window. | tjoff wrote: | alt+tab is a very different operation. | | ctrl+tab cycling to the next tab is essential for many ways | of surfing the web. | | For instance, research a topic and tap up many tabs. Now go | through them one by one. And in the process of doing so you | might want to tab up even more. | | At this point cycling to the next tab becomes a way to | navigate the history, but where you have the context of | each step preserved. MRU in this context is a nightmare. | | MRU for tabs doesn't make any sense to me, that purpose is | served by switching to another window instead (which is, | and should be, MRU). | Aardwolf wrote: | But ctrl+pgdn already goes to next tab, so ctrl+tab | doesn't need to do that same thing, MRU is what multi- | document programs (like text editors with multiple open | files, IDE's) usually do for ctrl+tab. And this for good | reason: this allows to cycle through the most recent | documents the easiest, following usage patterns. This | usage pattern also applies to browsers (and as said, | ctrl+pgup/pgdn already do prev/next tab for the other | usage pattern) | | finding back your tab amongst the many open ones is a | nightmare without some form of easily accessed recently | used list that also works across windows | jadyoyster wrote: | Before most-recent-order was the default I turned it on | manually, so it's most certainly not every user. | Hedepig wrote: | I shall be the second you've met. | | Its likely more useful for those who tend towards many tabs | open at once | chrismorgan wrote: | Right now, I have 258 tabs open in my main window, of which | I'm actively using at least a dozen, and will use another | few dozen within a day or so. (Probably should go through | and clean out a hundred or two.) Most of my family is some | degree of tab hoarder as well (my eldest sister regularly | has over a thousand tabs spread across a few windows). | rntksi wrote: | I used to do this too, then I got a bookmark save service | (Pocket). Now whenever I see something that I have the | reaction of keeping the tab around, I just save it and | close it instead. Makes browsing lighter. I do still have | around 20 tabs open normally, mostly things that don't | fit in the "bookmark save" workflow, but definitely | better than the 100+ tabs it used to be before. | abyssphenom wrote: | Get the "tab stash" extension, you can stash your tabs | instead of nuking them. That way you can go back a few | months and find things that would be tougher to find | through history or other means. | jhatax wrote: | Yet another tab management (YATM) recommendation here. I | use the OneTab extension to help me manage tabs. In a | recent update, they added the ability to: | | A) name tab groups; | | B) lock specific groups which mimics the capability of | bookmark folders (clicking a link doesn't remove it from | the group). | | The extension has helped me reduce the number of open | windows on my laptop, among other productivity | improvements. | tryauuum wrote: | Funny enough, for me it's extremely uncomfortable when tab | cycling doesn't represent the tab order I see on screen. I've | always disable that feature and even have code to autodisable | it on new installs | layer8 wrote: | The benefit of MRU order is that you can use it blindly to go | to the last- _n_ th tab without having to eye-coordinate with | the contents of the tab bar. It becomes an automatic muscle- | memory thing. | tryauuum wrote: | how many tabs do you have open on average? | layer8 wrote: | Usually less than a dozen, though I don't quite see the | relevance. I use MRU to switch between two to four | (rarely more) related tabs. | | In code editors I often have several dozens of tabs open, | and MRU is a crucial usability feature when coding, so | I'd say that its usefulness is independent of the number | of open tabs. | Tmpod wrote: | You can achieve ordered cycling with Ctrl+PgUp/Down in most | software, like Firefox. I use a mix of that and Tab to | navigate through my tabs | doliveira wrote: | With MRU order the stack order becomes automatically grouped | by subject, like actual function stacks. | tux3 wrote: | I really had to go and disable that. I use a lot of tabs, I | switch between them often, and a few of them stay open for a | while | | I have tree style tabs so my tabs are all already ordered in a | vaguely meaningful way, but the recent use order of my last | tabs is completely unpredictable to me! | | With this feature on ^tab might as well be random for how badly | it confuses me.. I'm so glad Mozilla hadn't removed the opt-out | yet. | bigpeopleareold wrote: | I think Sidebery is better for tab management. The default tab | UI is horrible for any non-trivial work. | nathanasmith wrote: | As another big fan of MRU tab switching, there is an extension | for Chromium based browsers that enables this feature: | https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/quick-tabs/jnjfein... | aetherspawn wrote: | I'm a Firefox user but I'm not sure that I can agree that it's | lighter than Google Chrome. I think Chrome is generally faster at | everything. | | Chrome is also more stable. For some reason my Firefox randomly | freezes once or twice a month and gets stuck in a crashing loop | where only a reboot will fix it. | | But on principle I use Firefox whenever possible. I appreciate | the effort that went into it. Still have to use Chrome daily for | one or two business web apps that block FF. | rkangel wrote: | This is what keeps me away from Firefox. I gave it a try for 3 | months a little while back but it was _so_ much slower than | Chrome for general browsing. Maybe I 'm due another try. | Zardoz84 wrote: | Weird... Since quantum, FF usually it's faster that Chrome | for general browsing. Specially if you have uBlock origin | installed. | rkangel wrote: | It was after all the press about quantum that I last gave | FireFox a go and was disappointed. Still, I'm willing to | try again - I'd like to do what I can to prevent another | browser monopoly. | szundi wrote: | I have a colleage who has a separate monitor for the open tabs. | That many he has. Only Firefox can do this for him. | invalidname wrote: | Chrome is possibly faster for 10 tabs or less. When you go | upwards of 100 like I do... It's not even in the competition. | Its UI becomes terrible and its unresponsive. FF keeps chugging | along without missing a beat. | haunter wrote: | Total opposite experience. At least under Windows Chromium is | perfectly fine with 150-200 tabs but FF starts falling apart | invalidname wrote: | Odd. I've been on Mac for more than a decade so no idea. | Notice that this only became a thing with Quantum so if you | used an older version of FF it wouldn't apply. | jlokier wrote: | I'm with the GP on this: FF is unstable with lots of | tabs. It's a big memory hog, and it's been like this for | about 2 years in my experience so far. I'm using a Mac | with 16GB RAM, and it's not enough for Firefox any more | (something changed, it used to use less memory). Using | current FF (103.0b9). Lot of tabs, but auto tab-unloading | so there shouldn't be a large number active. | | Reported memory use (in Activity Monitor) varies, | 8GB-25GB, and it's often swapping. Sometimes it uses | more, and then the system crashes. Often it fills my | remaining 20GB of free disk space for swap space. | Surprisingly, even opening HN pages and only following HN | links (i.e. all text-only), the memory usage grows in | this way over time. | | It's not possible to scroll smoothly or type a comment | like this without pauses and occasional spinning beach | balls. Just scrolling through a page with two-finger | drag, it will stop every 10 seconds or so, then jump | forwawrd. Moving the cursor with the cursor keys in this | comment window is similar. | | The constant jank and pauses may be entirely due to | memory swapping or some other garbage-collection like | overhead, I have no way to know. | | What other people write about this issue is that it's | likely some combination of number of tabs, and the fact | that modern pages need a lot of memory for large images, | compositing and similar, and perhaps memory used by add- | ons. But all of this has suggestive evidence against it: | If I go to about:memory and click "Minimize memory | usage", it _consistently_ brings memory usage down to not | much more than when Firefox starts up, without appearing | to change any functionality or deactivate any tabs; and | when it starts up it 's using less than 8GB despite | loading up the same session. It also does this itself | spontaneously from time to time, though not reliably | enough. | | That said, I switched from Safari when I realised Safari | was also being a memory hog and was causing everything | else on the laptop to be slow. At the time I switched, | Firefox was a lovely breath of fresh air in that | department. Even though I copied over all my tabs from | Safari (by hand), Firefox ran in very much less RAM, and | life was good again on the laptop. | | Something has changed since then, making Firefox much | worse for memory usage, and I don't yet know what it is. | Tagbert wrote: | Oddly, I also use FF on a 16GB Mac and experience none of | those slowdowns that you mention. On my work machine, FF | typically has around 100 tabs grouped into 4-6 tab groups | by project and it is solid. | | I do find that some websites end up using 1GB+ of memory | if you leave them running for an extended period of time | (looking at you MacRumors forums) but that happens on | Safari and Chrome, too. HN is usually the safest one that | uses the least memory. Sites with lots of ads load all | kinds of crap and can use surprising amounts of memory. | invalidname wrote: | I think this is due to specific sites. I try to avoid | Google Docs and have a separate instance of Chrome only | for that. I updated to the M1 Max with 64gb so even if FF | slowed down at some point I wouldn't know at this point. | But it was OK on my previous air which was pretty weak. | jlokier wrote: | "about:performance" does not show any pages or add-ons | being memory hogs. The memory use per page that it shows | is surprisingly small, and the _total_ comes to < 1GB. | | And I see the real memory usage grown, eventually to | crashing size, even when I'm just reading around HN, | clicking many article headings and comments but remaining | within the HN text-only site. | | I agree it's probably made worse caused by specific | sites, but I haven't been able to figure out which ones, | or perhaps it's wide range of them, which defeats | browsing in general. However, I now avoid Telegram Web, | because that does consistently crash Firefox for me | eventually (I've seen reported memory use grow to 67GB | when TW was open, about three times). | | Whatever it is, it doesn't look like site JavaScript | holding data in large JavaScript objects or DOM trees, | because minimizing memory use with "about:memory" reduces | the size to workable levels without any other observable | effect on open pages. | | So I'm inclined to think of the Firefox as having a | severe reclaimable-but-not-reclaimed memory leak or cache | problem of some kind, that is outside the world of | JavaScript data. | pessimizer wrote: | Pre-Quantum Firefox handled more tabs better. | LegitShady wrote: | I've been using firefox for the last 2-3 years, and I've had it | 'crash' 2 times, both on youtube, but that might be because of | all the privacy related addons I have. Ublock origin reports | more than 2k blocked scripts on youtube. | | Chrome also would crash occasionally and force me to reload | tabs. I don't think chrome is significantly faster in practice. | emsixteen wrote: | Within the past couple years I've went from Chrome to Edge, | then to Firefox, and on to LibreWolf. Edge is probably my | favourite of the bunch, and I think the CSS devtools are a lot | nicer in it, but I just want to keep my stuff as independent as | possible etc. | MegaDeKay wrote: | I'd consider faster as a different thing than lighter. I think | benchmarks show that the JS engine in Chrome is faster, but you | pay a price in memory and processor to get that. | | Personally, I have found FF really stable lately on both | Windows and Linux and use it whenever possible as you do. And | like you, I also need to fire up Chrome for the odd thing now | and then. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-17 23:00 UTC)