Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Firefox Multi-Account Containers (blog.mozilla.org)
850 points by nachtigall on Sept 15, 2017 | hide | past | favorite | 238 comments

I LOVE this feature, but it has only one problem: when I'm in a container and I press Ctrl+T (new tab), the new tab opens in the default container. This doesn't make sense, I want it to stay in the same container.

This was also discussed in the issue tracker, in a now closed issue, in which the intuitive behaviour (staying in the same container) was proposed, but got sidetracked and in the end implemented something totally different.

So if anyone from Firefox is listening here: please PLEASE consider implementing Ctrl+T in the same container :)

(Someone from Firefox here)

It's a popular request; about as popular as everyone who wants Ctrl+T to open in the default container. :)

So, for our core experience we picked the default behavior that helps maximize the privacy and security protections of Containers.

The good news is that, with the contextualIdentities extension API (exclusive to Firefox!), add-on authors can make their own add-ons to change this behavior. Like Taborama is doing:


Check out https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/cont... for more info on making Container-aware extensions.

If both are equally popular, it would make sense that this be an easily configurable option in the browser's settings. Favouring one option over the other will inevitably alienate about half the consumers of this awesome feature, which seems like a bit of a waste to me.

It seems like the Firefox team intends to only have what maximises the privacy security protections, and that this extra functionality (hereafter referred to as SameCon, versus the current DefCon) is ideally implemented as an add-on. I'd imagine they're thinking that if a user wants SameCont, that user can just add it as an add-on

I don't think this is the ideal solution, because I'd imagine there are a population of users who just wouldn't consider the possibility that SameCon could Be an add-on. Especially if the community is split roughly down the middle.

I think yours is the ideal solution, making SameCon a configurable option, but having the default option be DefCon. That way, the privacy and security protections are the Default behavior, but a user has the option to change it Built In

Very good point; and you get a +1 for "DefCon"

Just like the option to open in a new tab or window exists (or used to, I have not checked in years)

I agree. If both are popular, it should be a settings option for users to configure.

I think there's a GitHub issue for it too. Please upvote!

Do you know if anyone has suggested this variant:

* CTRL-T opens in DefCon

* Right-clicking a link and selecting "Open in New Tab" opens in SameCon

That's what I would expect the default behavior to be.

Control-click and mouse 3 (middle button / scroll wheel) click already open a new tab in the current container.

But, if you're someone who browses primarily using keyboard shortcuts, this just doesn't cut it.

Got a link?

I went searching and found this issue, which is still open:


    "Opening a new tab from a container window opens a normal tab and not a
    container tab"
I should note that the last comment on that issue was made in July, so I went ahead and commented asking about adding a setting to change the new-tab container inheritance behavior.

They're probably making a conservative change that's easy to back out of, as a default, and then let various extensions experiment and discover how it should really work.

Personally I would want tabs to be in the bozo container by default, unless I explicitly grant the website access to a trusted container, or something.

Extension makers will experiment and Firefox can choose from what gets learned.

Popularity is only one aspect. The only thing split popularity means is that you probably don't want to make the choice with that as your top criterion. Also, people preferring A doesn't automatically mean you'll alienate them by choosing B. Choosing this default because it's more secure, in the face of a split vote, seems like a pretty decent option to me (and I say this as somebody who would've voted for the other option).

I love the container feature but for one thing - the lack of decent shortcuts to open a new tab in a specific container I want.

The keyboard shortcut for the browserAction pop-up is ctrl + . and then you should be able to tab down to whichever container you want.

Thanks for that hint on using "Ctrl ." ! After this key combination, it would still be useful to avoid further navigation using tab and arrow keys and instead have some kind of additional key (like p, w, b, s for personal, work, banking and shopping, respectively...or the first letter of the container name as the shortcut).

Good idea ... file an issue for it? :)

i would prefer that different containers open in separate windows and then every Ctrl+T would open in that window's context. also makes it easy to close all tabs from a single identity,

This is how I use the Qupzilla browser, always in private browsing mode - each window/process is a separate session shared across all contained tabs.


+1 makes most sense.

Mixing different containers in the same window feels a bit awkward to me.

How is that helping the privacy? That option would seem to me to be worse for privacy. If I'm in my personal container and my work container is the default then I want my next tab to open in my personal container.

Or perhaps a different keybinding could give you a choice of containers to open the new tab in.

Unfortunately my suggestion of Ctrl+Shift+T is already taken.

CTRL+clicking the "+" sign will open a new tab on the same container!!

It's a bit awkward although it works, until they get the CTRL+T solved.

God or whatever's big these days, bless you !


On behalf of Linux users who use this to open Terminal... NOOO! I use this key combo constantly and it would take ages to unlearn it. Ctrl+Alt+T = open a terminal window, dozens of times a day every day.

What if the new tab had a command line inside of it? That would be perfect!

You're an emacs user, aren't you?

Firefox actually has a command line [0], though it's not a terminal. I'm pretty sure there's an extension for a real terminal, though.

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/GCLI

I'd really like to be able to follow links from within a container and have them open in the default container (or a specific container if they are pinned).

Example: I contain google.com to a container called "Google", then I perform a Google search. I click a search link, and it opens in the Google container.

Ideally this would still use default. There is the option to right click every link, select "Open in Container" and then pick the default but it's not really optimal for two reasons: 1. Manual effort by the user 2. The link is to a redirector on Google's site, before it forwards to the third party site (though I guess I can live with this, its kind of outside scope of the feature).

So, really, I just want to pin a domain to a container. If I leave that domain, I want it to change containers.

I haven't been able to find a good way to do this automatically, with any of the configurable settings.

I think opening links this way would defeat the purpose of containers (with respect to privacy) because that would allow Google to link containers (most sites contain some JS from G). If this is not what concerns you then I guess some extension could fix it?

Well, that specific example is a confusing type of link, but it would not really expose your privacy any more than having to right click 'Open in a different container' if you have segmented off the Google domain..

EG, if you open it within the Google container, your privacy is most exposed. Whether you have to right click and select 'Open in a different container' when following search or email links, or whether you can have the browser do this automatically, the end result is the same. You're following a Google link, so if they create a special one that tells them which result you clicked on, they still see it and know about it because it's on their domain.

But once you get to that third party domain, you're in a separate container instead of one filled with your own special Adsense cookies.

There are extensions you can use to remove Google's redirect link in their result page.

But this is kind of tangent to what I was trying to get across.

If one has goal is to contain a web property, giving them their own container but then keeping that container open when you leave their site is not really containment.

As all these things, it should be a setting!

And maybe some hints during the second time you open a tab.

As the user-base grows, we'll likely adopt more settings.

We had some original mock-ups with more settings, but they cluttered the introductory UI and seemed to only confuse people new to the concept.

> It's a popular request; about as popular as everyone who wants Ctrl+T to open in the default container. :)

Do you have any proof like a larger survey? I highly doubt that's a 50:50 request.

Why should one want to open a new tab in the default container with Ctrl-t? Ctrl-t is used and learned as a shortcut to open something (like a tab) in the current context. The current context would be not just your current browser window but also your current container. Ctrl-n would go more in your direction.

Would be great if we had sensible defaults without the need to get exensions.

Besides, do I need to get a Firefox account for this feature?

No, you don't need a Firefox account to use this feature or add-on. The "Multi-Account" describes multiple accounts on websites - not Firefox itself.

Question: If I have the core experiment enabled, should I uninstall that before installing this one?

Why isn't this under Test Pilot?

If you install the Test Pilot experiment (add-on), you'll be automatically migrated to AMO. We plan to "graduate" the Test Pilot listing soon.

If it works like in test pilot, try middle-clicking the new tab button. I usually use it to open a new tab next to the one I am reading, and it opens it in the same container (which is sometimes slightly annoying).

Of course, this is no replacement for a keyboard shortcut.

Yup, that does it.

Same if you do ctrl + enter in the url or a containerized tab.

And you still have no way to have bookmarks that open in a specific container. (you can however flag a URL to always open in a container since recently).

But it's just because the feature is very new. They do listen to the community, and will fix it on the long run.

At the very beginning containers where unusable, because even links you clicked would not open in the same container :) The community reported it and it was fixed.

So don't worry, it takes time, but Mozilla will do the right thing. They most often do, that's the beauty of it and why I kept using Firefox to support them, even when it was clearly less practical than chrome.

> you can however flag a URL to always open in a container since recently

That's almost exactly the opposite usecase I have for using accounts in Chrome.

Yes, I wish it worked this way! Even if with another shortcut that's ok too.

GitHub issue: https://github.com/mozilla/testpilot-containers/issues/462

> This doesn't make sense, I want it to stay in the same container.

I'd say it's highly subjective and it may vary case per case. Also this would completely defeat the security purpose of this feature. Imagine someone has opened a "Banking" tab, and want to convert an account number to IBAN, or just convert amount between two currencies. You'll need a new tab for that. But you definitely don't want to do that in the "Banking" session, right?

As I've already remarked here[0] on github, the real problem is that you're forced to choose the container before you decide what you're doing in the new tab.

[0]: https://github.com/mozilla/testpilot-containers/issues/245#i...

Like someone burried in the comment tree said:

CTRL+clicking the "+" sign will open a new tab on the same container.

Yeah. As it is right now I'll just stick with the multi profile extension.

This point is super important usability wise - gets upvote from me too.

This is incredibly useful. It's basically like Chrome's 'profiles', except per-tab rather than per-window. So I can now have my personal gmail, my work gmail, and the 3rd gmail account for a client set next to each other, and colour coded.

This, along with the speed improvements (both the UI and content processes) in Firefox 55 have made it my default browser for the first time since Chrome was released.

Yes, best feature ever. I've been giving it a try for some time now since it came out in test pilot and it's beautiful.

Open your google/twitter/whatever accounts in separate profiles, et you get the benefits of being "always logged in" with no tracking on your main session.

Having multiple github accounts next to each others is a bliss and prevent so many stupid mistakes I used to make, like commenting with the wrong identity on a PR.

Combined with the tab group extension, it makes currently Firefox the most productive browser experience I had in years.

> you get the benefits of being "always logged in" with no tracking on your main session

_well_ what about web sites that use information about your browser that isn't stored in cookies? Check out https://panopticlick.eff.org/

Unless Firefox has a story to prevent this kind of tracking, don't rely on multiple profiles for any important separation you're trying to keep.

If you enable 'privacy.resistFingerprinting' in your about:config, you get substantially harder to track. The caveat is that there's a small (albeit noticeable) performance delta.

That attribute is part of ongoing work and it's disabled for a reason. Currently it doesn't protect you against canvas or webgl fingerprinting.

I think you can turn webgl off or disable extensions and use the addon CanvasBlocker for that until the Tor Uplift project gets completed.

They do have tracking protection (basically a content blocker) but by default it's only enabled in private mode.

What should you rely on?

EFF's Privacy Badger extension [0] should help a little, but if you really need to avoid tracking you'll need something more like Tor.


Torbrowser actually warns to not resize your browser as the resize allows people to fingerprint you

good question, I don't personally have such needs so I haven't investigated it.

For the record, Firefox does also have profiles like Chrome has them: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...

Alternatively type "about:profiles" into the URL-bar, which you can also bookmark.

Unlike chrome, you can't have multiple Firefox profiles running simultaneously unless you're using two separate installs. Even then, one has to be nightly/developer/etc, or it refused to start.

You can. As the other commenter wrote `firefox -no-remote -P` works. You can also add the name of a profile after the "-P" to launch directly into that profile.

If you're not on Windows, you can also instead use `firefox -new-instance -P`, which is better, because -no-remote cuts off communication from other applications to that Firefox instance, meaning that you can't open links from those other applications inside a Firefox instance that's been started with -no-remote.

The aforementioned "about:profiles" also has a button "Launch profile in new browser", which is much easier than the above methods, but those are useful, if you for example want desktop shortcut for your individual profiles.

I use multiple firefox profiles at the same time and it works fine. try

firefox -no-remote -p

Yes! I've said this since day zero of the Chrome profile implementation we were all forced^H^H^Hstrongly encouraged to evaluate. This does not work on a Social web, at least not for most people. Humans have one technical identity, but they have multiple personas, and they adapt them per context. We have done so for thousands of years and to force every interactive to be viewed in the context of every other robs people of normal expectations of freedom.

Yes Firefox seems to be making big strides, and I find myself using it more often these days. It's a ripe environment for them right now too, with many more of the general public growing wary of Google (kind of the new Microsoft, in Mozilla/Netscape terms). If I didn't have to test stuff in Chrome, I'd probably be ready (as of FF55) to uninstall it altogether. Even the Firefox dev tools are better than Chrome in my opinion.

I agree, although the fact that pinch-to-zoom still sucks big time in Firefox (in comparison to Safari and Chrome/Chromium) annoys me so much, in the end i always keep avoiding Firefox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=688990

It sooo much easier when reading articles to be able to zoom in to the 'article text only' in Safari/Chromium.

However it doesn't appear to containerize extensions / add-ons, so it's probably still prudent to use a separate clean profile for banking to avoid the risk of malicious data-slurping add-ons.

Despite their claims for it: "Maybe you want to keep your bank’s website farther away from your Pinterest board"

Would you trust using a potential "data-slurping" add-on at all? I honestly wouldn't, neither for my bank info, nor for my search queries.

Just be mindful of what add-ons you install.

I think the OP is sorta saying the same thing -- they perhaps don't want their banking container to see add-ons (except the container add-on :-)). It's perhaps okay to be relaxed about some add-ons in some environments, but not in all environments.

Isn't this what profiles were designed for?

I always thought profiles we're designed for multiple users on one login; they've been around for ages, and I assumed it was because windows 98 wasn't good with multiple profiles/users.

This is the reason it's not useful for me

I have separate LastPass accounts on each chrome profile (one for work and for personal use) and there's no way to keep them separate like this

Firefox does also have those completely separate profiles. Container Tabs are a new thing on top of that.

This is huge! I work for an IT consulting firm and we have accounts for each client which I store in their unique chrome profiles. Keeps things organized but switching between windows can get tedious at times so having them per-tab is making me switch back to Firefox

Look forwards to 57 then because that’s a good deal faster than 55.


As an aside, I've been migrating away from Chrome for a while - and I posted here a while back being dismayed by how terrible Firefox was, how slow/etc it was, etc. Many people suggested I switch to nightly.

Nightly is .. a night and day experience. I've been fully switched from Chrome now, thanks to Firefox. Note that on OSX I've had no complaints with Safari as my Chrome replacement, so I've stuck with them - but on windows it's all Firefox.

Keep up the great work guys, the new stuff is amazing. Hope you can push it to stable branch soon for people. :)

Just installed Nightly thinking "how can it be any different from the Developer Edition?" ... Wow, I couldn't be more wrong!

It is indeed a night and day experience! More approachable UI, and much faster performance... Big well-done to everyone working hard to keep Firefox competitive :-)

As an aside, whenever I click on a Slashdot article about Mozilla and Firefox...ALMOST ALL the comments bash Mozilla and Firefox to pieces...and mostly from anonymous posters.

On HN we seem to get reasoned arguments for or against Mozilla and Firefox, but not seemingly mindless hate.

Now I know that HN is a higher class forum these days--Slasdot is not still in its heyday--but I have to say it is refreshing.

Wow, nightly is really impressive. Some operations like opening videos are crazily fast, almost feels native.

One conspicuous absence is that there's no way to save a web app to desktop, I use that a lot with Chromium on Linux.

You're likely experiencing the major performance improvements that come along with Firefox 57. In a few weeks the general release should feel that fast without some of the trade-offs that come with Nightly. The biggest downside to 57 I'm experiencing is that not all extensions have been updated to the new web extensions framework, so there are some workflows that don't work for me at the moment (LastPass, which is working on a new release, and Stylish, which I'm not sure will update).

Be careful about Stylish - since it was sold, it stirred a lot of the community by dropping the original ideals and including tracking software.

The change of hands happened after the last Firefox version update, so it should be safe for the time being.

If you follow why the Stylus extension was made (port from Chrome's Stylish), you can find more explanations.

Thank you so much to alerting me to this, I was completely unaware. Switching to Stylus now, which has the nice side effect of making me readier for 57.

> and Stylish, which I'm not sure will update

Stylish has a Chrome version so I'd guess they'll port that to Firefox for 57+. In the meantime there's Stylus, which is a fork of the Chrome version of Stylish:


I also don't know how much of that performance boost comes from just disabling all my extensions.

Yeah, I recently went full-bore over to Firefox and DuckDuckGo. I was been surprised by how easy the transition was. Firefox is way better than it was a few years ago.

Stable release of Firefox 57 is November 14th.

For historical reasons I cannot avoid to mention that I achieved this with my Cookiepie extension 11 years ago (a billon Internet years ago indeed): https://youtu.be/2Pfg-kJ4nAw Cookiepie was written only in JavaScript and was very hackish because Firefox APIs didn't have a way to correlate network requests with the tab in the UI, so I traversed network and UI objects recursively to find unknown relationships between them. It was very difficult to support because even minor Firefox releases broke it.

I even posted my Cookiepie extension for the first Firefox extension contest [1] and there was no prize or mention for it.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2006/03/mozilla-announces-win...

As a Firefox engineer, then, let me say props for being ahead of your time! (And waaaaay ahead of mine - I'm new to PrivSec engineering at Firefox)

I'm not sure if Cookiepie directly inspired the engineers who built originAttributes and Containers features here, but after working with this Firefox team I can definitely say that the core Containers tech is not hackish at all - great engineers here.

Anyway, thanks for contributing!

> I'm not sure if Cookiepie directly inspired the engineers...

I never thought Cookiepie was an original idea since many people wanted to have cookie separation per tab once they started to use multiple accounts from the same service.

The interesting part of Cookiepie was solving a problem that, supposedly, was not possible to solve with the API, and required some exploratory techniques like automating the search of relationship between objects.

originAttributes and Containers can be traced back to the appId cookie/storage separation implemented for b2g (aka FirefoxOS) apps. I remember that baku wrote an early Fx add-on abusing appIds and docShells to provide a container-like functionality.

In more detail:

For the original FirefoxOS security model, sicking and jlebar rototilled all the security checks in the codebase to switch from comparing origins to comparing (origin, appId, isInMozBrowser) tuples.

Later on, for the eventually-abandoned FirefoxOS New Security Model (NSec), we needed to pass around a signed package id instead. So the options on the table were to rototill the codebase again, or to do something out of band with the cookie service (sicking's proposal).

When I found out about this I wasn't particularly happy with either option, and used my sec module ownership to insert myself into the discussion, and push for a more general approach (i.e. OriginAttributes). Sicking was initially kind of peeved about this, because they were on a deadline, but eventually came around. So we did one more pass of the rototiller to switch everything from appId+mozBrowser to the general and extensible mechanism.

Years later, FirefoxOS is no more, but OriginAttributes are still used to implement Private Browsing, Containers, and First-Party Isolation. Here's to general/reusable solutions!

and now extensions like, with functionality not invisioned and implemented by mozilla ahead of time, will become impossible, horay!

I am a long-time user of the deprecated Multifox extension and I have switched to the Firefox containers ever since they have been introduced to the stable releases about a year ago. This feature is actually builtin in Firefox, you only need to change some config settings to enable the UI (probably this is also all what the linked extension does?).

As Multifox was one of the old XUL/XPCOM extensions, I am glad that this functionality was integrated natively before Firefox 57 will disable all extensions that are not WebExtensions.

It is a great way to login to multiple accounts on various sites such as Twitter, without going through the hassle of a full logout/login cycle. You can use the accounts side-by-side in different tabs, which will be color coded to indicate which container they belong to.

More details can be found on the Mozilla wiki: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec...

The add-on flips the config setting, but also:

1. Implements the browserAction pop-up UI for managing containers & tabs 2. Adds the ability to assign sites to always open in a certain container

how do you do #2? I can't find it? For example, I want Facebook to always open in my "Facebook" container.

EDIT: I guess I just had to ask then my brain figured it out. :) Open the page in the container you want, right click the extension icon and choose "Always open in this container"

You can also assign the site to the Container in the browserAction pop-up UI.

That's great, I hate when Youtube recommends me all kinds of videos about turtles just because I stumbled over a video of turtle 6 months ago

I'm actually quite shocked Youtube does that. I know exactly what you mean, and I specifically avoid clicking on some videos because I know Youtube will just spam me with those in the future.

I'm sure in many cases the recommendations give more traffic than less, but I can't help but feel for me personally, it's giving Youtube less traffic. I actively avoid clicking some videos on Youtube, because I don't want that crap to repeatedly show up for me. It's a cancerous feature.

I've found it useful to purge my Youtube history every once in a while. If I click on random Youtube links on irc, they always get opened in a private/incognito session. I'm annoyed this is something that I think about.

It's not terribly useful for people who open stuff from within the browser, but for the past couple of years I've actually had my default browser in Windows set to incognito/private mode of whatever browser I'm using. This way I don't have to think about it, and I also don't have to deal with things like Gmail deciding that I've already seen some emails because my inbox loaded in a background tab.

Heh, a bit like Firefox Focus on Android. That's a great idea.

That is my whole problem with this recent machine learning approach has been taken off in last decade. I don't have anything against AI. But there is got to be a way to sign this off. Sadly google thend to shove it in people throats.

Agreed, and it's one of the reasons I've switched off of everything google I can. Youtube and Google Voice are the only things left. Oh and my Pixel XL phone, but I'll be switching to the iPhone X in Jan / Fed (whenever it goes carrier free).

I hate not knowing what consequences my actions are going to have.

Personally, I think people should never use these services while logged in their Google account. Just keep the logged accounts in another Firefox profile and browse from an "amnesic" one (one which blocks third party cookies, have cookie self-destruct, adblocked to the hell, etc).

This new extension should help with this experience, BTW.

You can delete videos from your history or "tune" what it shows you by selecting "Not Interested" on the video's option menu in the recommendation list.

I was in the test pilot for this and I had one singular gripe which I don't think has been addressed or brought up anywhere else I've seen: I want to be able to move a tab from one container to another.

It's so easy to open a tab in the default container, or the wrong container, and being able to move that tab, along with all the data it has spawned (like cookies) would make this a killer feature for me.

The only other thing, which admittedly makes my one singular gripe less singular, is that I didn't see any separation in the history, as far as what was in a given container. In an ideal world, each container would have its own "Show all history" data.

Thank you! This is absolutely essential for a good container experience.

I use Chrome profiles heavily, so I am very happy Firefox is exploring this feature. When doing consulting, I like to keep different client activities isolated to their own profile, so I have less things to juggle if they use the same cloud service (AWS, G Suite, Jira, etc).

One limitation I currently see to that workflow (that works better for me in Chrome) is that this appears to all reside under a single Firefox Account which essentially creates master set of data to Sync. I would like to be able to setup Containers to be pegged to different Firefox Accounts (or not at all).

I mean, this is distinct from Firefox Profiles, which work pretty much exactly like Chrome profiles and sync the same way.

Learned something new, thanks. This doesn't look terribly user friendly https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-.... Edit: And in testing I can't have multiple profiles open at the same time.

You can also use about:profiles, which is a little nicer than the profile manager.

So that seems broken as well, when you click "Launch profile in new browser" it doesn't actually appear to be creating a browser tied to that profile, as I just setup my personal sync account it caused all the open browsers (across 3 profiles I setup) to all sign into that account.

So if this exists, why don't they do some minor adjustments to make it usable and call it good? This works rather well (except not telling you which browser is loaded with which profile)

And in testing I can't have multiple profiles open at the same time.

You can, it's just not easy to discover :( Edit your Firefox shortcut and add "-P --no-remote" after the command.

Sounds kinda like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288858 ?

Or maybe a new bug in the [META] Contextual Identity / Containers Bugs ? (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=11914...)

This has been extremely useful for the past month or so that I've been using it. I separate work accounts and personal accounts and that has tremendously simplified using the browser. For Youtube, I can use a different Google account without logging out of my main one. I call it my "Entertainment" container - maybe it will also make it harder for agencies to connect my leisure activities to other activities.

I even have a "Testing" container when I'm testing a webapp and need to log in with 2 different users in the same window. Very convenient.

This is exactly how I would like to use this feature, but from what I read, Firefox Sync only supports one of the accounts. Does that affect containers? I'd like to sync all of my bookmarks, history etc. from both work and personal containers.

Bookmarks and browsing history are not separated by Container Tabs. So, it will sync both personal and work bookmarks, just like it would without Container Tabs. The idea being that you look towards the internet like several users, but on your end it still behaves like a single user.

If you do want bookmarks and browsing history separated, then yeah, as the other guy said you'll want to use classic profiles. Easiest way is to type "about:profiles" into the URL-bar and then the rest should be self-explanatory. Another (scriptable) way is explained here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...

And then you'd create a second Firefox Account and give each profile a different Firefox Account to sync to.

I think you'd have to use two old-style profiles (separate windows) and then containers in each.

I've been using containers in test pilot for about a month and I love it. Google is separated from my news reading, is separated from my banking, is separated from my shopping, is separated from my leisure activity, is separated from my work activity. Once you set it up to aways open a site within a designated container it is all smooth.

However, I wonder. What is the technical reason for not making it default to 1 container by site? Sure that would mean hundreds of containers...but does that pose performance problems?

> However, I wonder. What is the technical reason for not making it default to 1 container by site? Sure that would mean hundreds of containers...but does that pose performance problems?

It would break some webpages. Also, yes, the vast majority of broken things will be tracking, but as a browser vendor you sort of need to not piss off webpage owners (which often benefit from tracking, directly or indirectly), as otherwise they'll stop testing their webpage against your browser.

Also, as far as I understand things, Tor Browser actually has what essentially is a separate Container Tab per domain. It's described somewhat more precisely here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec...

I've used this from the days of it [1] being in Test Pilot (an add-on for experimental features) [2] and really loved the idea. Usually I'd use a couple of different browsers or shuttle between normal and private browsing/incognito modes for using multiple logins on services (from a privacy standpoint, I don't like linking accounts together on any service, like for example how Google allows users to do).

I did provide feedback to the developers on the following:

1. Opening new tabs should have better intelligence about which container a user wants to go with.

2. Improving the look of the tab bar for better tab visibility and clarity on which tab was the current one.

3. Detailed and clear documentation on how containers work across normal windows and private windows, because I certainly wouldn't want to use something believing that it's providing me isolation while it does not in certain scenarios. In my limited knowledge, the behavior of different browsers, in keeping cookies/storage isolated, in private/inprivate/incognito mode varies when it comes to multiple windows, multiple tabs and closing windows/tabs. That is already not clear enough (to me) that I don't open more than one private/inprivate/incognito window at the same time.

I would love for this to get into Firefox main instead of being an extension!

[1]: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/containers

[2]: https://testpilot.firefox.com/

I am building my own Chromium-based browser with a similar concept called "bubbles" [0][1]. Not doing a show-hn on it until next week because I need to build another release but feel free to try it out (I recommend building over using the one in the releases area as a lot of bugs have been fixed in master).

Oh and for the commenter wanting Ctrl+T in the same container, a Ctrl+Shift+T in Doogie does open a child page in the same bubble.

0 - https://github.com/cretz/doogie

1 - https://cretz.github.io/doogie/guide/bubble


Instead putting your effort into a single person project you could do it for Brave browser or ungoogled-chromium, it would be more useful and you would get more users.

I have fundamental disagreements with those projects (primarily the UI). Adoption is not an explicit goal.

I really like this, but why for everything that is holy does it not work in Private Windows?

I use Private mode a lot and it doesn't really make sense to group everything together just because it is "Private".

Press and hold in the '+' button shows the container menu. Took we a while to figure this out.

I implement "containers" simply by using different browsers (one for each screen). Chrome runs my (Google) email, calendar, drive. And then I use Firefox for my client work, where I log in/out of various client identities. I have Firefox set to "nuke" all session data on close - an absolute must-have feature for testing caching issues and making sure I don't end up with "hidden" active sessions around the web.

I've been wanting something like this for Android / ios.

I've had the problem that many restaurant rewards program have gone from "10 punches on this card and your next sandwich is free" to "type in your phone number / scan this card" on each visit and have now become "install our app" to get that free sandwich. That's more than I'm willing to give up for a cheap meal once every few months.

My equivalent is to use incognito/private browsing (depending on browser of choice). However, once again, browsers are opinionated, and don't offer to save passwords in private/incognito mode (with no overrides). Which means I just avoid the whole experience when possible.

Similarly, things like Focus let you access a throwaway experience even more easily. Still no password saving though.

Good though. You've drawn the line, and kept with it. My privacy is worth more than a sandwich every few months.

I've been using this for over a month now, and while I'm convinced it's the right idea, the implementation leaves much to be desired. Currently, it costs more effort than it's worth.

[EDIT: comments show this does exist! great] Missing: easy way to open a new tab in a specific profile. ctrl-T always opens in Default profile, not the one you're on. So have to go File menu -> New tab -> select profile. And that menu changes items around slightly, so no muscle memory. I end up going to a tab already open, middle clicking a random link, ctrl-L, and using that as a fresh tab. I see on their little drawings they show some cool drop down under the + button at the right of the tab row, but I can't find any such functionality.

[EDIT: Comments show exists. Good enough!] Missing: a way to fix certain hosts to certain profiles. E.g. {XXX.myclient.com -> always open in "Client X" tab}. E.g. with links from GitHub (which is client independent) into custom CIs (jenkins etc). You forget, "why isn't this logged in? oh, profiles", go back, right click the link, open in new container -> select container. Ugh.

Missing: a way to disallow any non-whitelisted hosts from a tab. E.g. having a gmail tab is useless, because every link you click will open in that profile (and you won't notice because hey, it works) and now your gmail credentials and cookies are available there. Again defeats the purpose. Especially for a "Banking" tab, for example.

Missing: clear warning that this doesn't do anything meaningful against tracking. It's a complete waste of time to separate your Facebook into a separate profile if you don't want to be tracked across other domains. Fingerprinting goes well beyond cookies. They don't need your account cookie to link your visits.

Missing: segmentation of plugins!! Different NoScript or µblock settings per profile? yes please! Or even just native Firefox settings (3rd party cookies, clearing policy, etc) per website per profile would be lovely.

All in all: I'm stubborn so I'll keep using it, but I'll be honest: there's quite a low ROI on them, as they are. Good start, hope they improve.

EDIT: Another missing: clear cookies only from a certain profile. E.g. discover I've accidentally been browsing youtube in work profile (or whatever), I want to delete all youtube cookies _but only from that profile_. Can't do it. I encounter this problem often with GMail, where I want to clear a friend's login but not log out all my sessions from different containers.

(PS: Sorry for using "profile" and "container" interchangeably---it was a bit stream of consciousness. I mean "container" for both words).

The Firefox "containers" experiment (available in Nightly at least, maybe earlier) lets you set a site to always open in a certain profile. Even if you use ctrl-T (or ctrl-click on a link from a default tab, etc.) to open a new tab in Default, navigating to a site that's set to always open in container B will cause that tab to switch to container B.

I put this thing together a while back to help out with accidentally opening things in the wrong tab. You can right-click on a tab and 'move' it to a different context. It's a bit of a hack, in that it destroys the old tab and replaces it with a new one, but it's still quite useful.


We love getting issues on our GitHub repo:


And we're asking folks to upvote their favorite issues, so we can point more add-on developers at these lists. Since we can't solve for every workflow and use-case, we really want to enable an ecosystem of container-aware addons. (Some of the other comments here link to the already-growing number of container-aware addons)

And check out https://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/cont... if you're interested in making your own.

> I see on their little drawings they show some cool drop down under the + button at the right of the tab row, but I can't find any such functionality.

Click and hold the new tab button. You should see the menu.

> Missing: easy way to open a new tab in a specific profile

Long click the new tab button then select the profile. Or just click the button on the toolbar and select the profile.

> Missing: a way to fix certain hosts to certain profiles.

When you click the toolbar button, you get the option to always open in the current container.

> Long click the new tab button then select the profile. Or just click the button on the toolbar and select the profile.

Further to this, I've been using (and meaning to embellish on) a little trick to make this even simpler, without having to use the mouse, using the "always open this host in container X" feature.

I have 2 gmail accounts so don't want to tie gmail.com to a specific container. I only have 1 pagerduty account so I have that open in my Work container automatically. So, to get to my work gmail I open a new tab (Ctrl+T), go to pagerduty (you don't have to wait for it to load), then go to gmail. Voila, work gmail without the mouse.

The embellishment is to set up work.mydomain.com, play.mydomain.com, whatever.mydomain.com. Tie each of them to a container and go from there.

> Missing: a way to disallow any non-whitelisted hosts from a tab. E.g. having a gmail tab is useless, because every link you click will open in that profile (and you won't notice because hey, it works) and now your gmail credentials and cookies are available there. Again defeats the purpose. Especially for a "Banking" tab, for example.

You can mitigate some of this with Cookie AutoDelete which has support for contextual identities. After you close a tab it'll nuke cookies for any non-whitelisted domain for that context.

I think parent comment wanted something more like First-Party Isolation (privacy.firstparty.isolate and privacy.firstparty.isolate.restrict_opener_access in about:config, use with caution - it will break things, including breaking Cookie Auto-Delete extension)

https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/6y7lpw/what_is_fir... (sorry, don't know any mozilla.org link for FPI that has any good description what it does and how it works)

But at that point the third party website might have already accessed those cookies.

> Missing: segmentation of plugins!! Different NoScript or µblock settings per profile? yes please! Or even just native Firefox settings (3rd party cookies, clearing policy, etc) per website per profile would be lovely.

Privacy extensions could do this on their own. They can integrate with containers where it makes sense. Enforcing it from the firefox side would probably be more confusing than useful.

> EDIT: Another missing: clear cookies only from a certain profile.

Extensions could implement this.

> Missing: a way to disallow any non-whitelisted hosts from a tab.

Extensions could implement this.

Fingerprinting may be a thing, but you can clearly see a big different in google results when you are logged in or not.

Another fan of containers. I switched to Chromium/Safari a long time ago, but installed Nightly 57 the other day out of curiosity, and containers is definitely the best feature in it. Only thing I would love even more would be a private/incognito container (or basically private tabs alongside regular tabs without the need for opening a private new window).

Great feature! I switched to FF Nightly some months ago, and I can confirm the performance is great. Sadly I had to switch back to Chrome, the quality of extensions in Chrome is just much higher.

Now, I only just learned recently that in theory you can use Chrome extensions in Firefox, does this actually work well? Or just so-so.

So, this extension quality problem isn't new. Firefox's current extension API is really powerful, but really complicated and it's not really an API, it's more-so just a way to fuck around with Firefox's source code, so if Mozilla changes things then generally extensions break and need to be updated.

Because of that Mozilla has wanted to move to a different extension API for a long time, they just couldn't really afford to, because it would require breaking all extensions for good.

Now they are at the point where they do feel like breaking all extensions weighs up with the benefits. Another big factor here is the new multiprocess-architecture, which is the foundation for most of those performance improvements that you've seen, and also requires breaking all extensions. (Currently those old extensions can still be used, but Firefox will then drop back to singleprocess - another quality problem that you likely encountered.)

So, now they needed that new extension API. And instead of writing and testing a completely new API, Mozilla decided to base it off of Chrome's extension API.

Some smaller Chrome-specific APIs were left out / adjusted, but short of that and potential bugs in the implementation, Firefox is going to be compatible with Chrome extensions. (They are also adding new APIs that Chrome does not support, because they want to offer more extensibility, so it's essentially a superset of Chrome's extension API.)

For most extension developers, the only porting work is going to be to test it, work around bugs if they run into some and then upload it to addons.mozilla.org.

The more or less 1.0 release of that implementation is going to be with Firefox 57 on November 14th, which is also when the old extension API is going to be disabled. But most of this new extension API (called "WebExtensions") is already in Firefox as of today, there's just still some bugs left to be squished.

So, that's why and how you can run Chrome extensions in Firefox. It's up to the individual extension developers to port their extension.

Well, that's the normal path, which is not going to be so-so.

As I said, the porting work is often minimal. So minimal that it can almost be automated. That's why this extension can exist: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-store-...

Assuming there's no bugs, then the only part which can't be automated is signing the extension. Haven't done it myself yet, but from what I hear, it's a matter of creating/having a Firefox Account, uploading the extension-file and then waiting for a few days or so.

So, to summarize: Firefox now supports Chrome extensions with minimal porting work necessary, meaning that lots of those will get ported over. You can try to port things on your own and if there's no bugs then it shouldn't be hard (and it's not hard to find out if there are bugs). And lots of old, unmaintained and problematic extensions will get thrown out with Firefox 57, making it much easier to find the qualitatively better ones.

I doubt this will help much with privacy. People's laziness plus cognitive effort needed to track what container you are in plus various tricks from advertisers and publishers will keep vast majority of users perfectly trackable.

Chrome's approach at least helps to keep multiple profiles visually separate.

Yes it shouldn't be used for privacy-sensitive identities. Right now opening a new link in a new tab will use the default profile, this makes it super easy to link profiles. Even if that was fixed, all the tabs have pretty much the same browser settings.

The main use-case is when you have home/work split with multiple accounts.

The article says: "online trackers can’t easily connect the browsing", which seems to imply that they can still connect the browsing. Why can't they be completely prevented from tracking other browsing. The second question I have is how is this different from Firefox profiles?

They can still track you through your IP address, or by a combination of many browser/computer/OS properties available through JS, for example window size, browser agent, OS, fonts installed, etc. All these things don't identify you by themselves, but with enough of them you can build a fingerprint which is (almost) unique.

Firefox Profiles function like a multi-user experience whereas Container Tabs function like a single-user experience that only looks like multiple users towards the internet. So, for example browsing history, bookmarks and add-ons are not separated by Container Tabs.

Also, you can (obviously) use them in tabs, not just in separate windows like profiles.

I wonder if there is any reason each tab isn't spawned in its own container. It seems the natural thing to do once you have implemented this, since it maximizes privacy. Unless the resource usage is the limiting factor, I don't see a downside. Am I missing something?

That's what Containers on the Go does:


It wasn't our core use-case, but there's a Web Extension API for others to build on!

Very interesting. I'm thrilled that there's a Web Extension API, this sounds like a killer feature.

Now if only Pentadactyl/Vimperator could be reproduced on top of Web Extensions without loss of functionality... ;-)

It breaks some webpages to do that and Mozilla unfortunately can't always just put user privacy above all else, because then webpage owners have little incentive to test their webpage in Firefox, as they'll make less money if they can't invade user privacy so much anymore.

Tor Browser has essentially what you described, so it's not the case that resource usage would be problematic.

Yes, I'm interested in the technical background of this supposed breakage. Having a container-per-tab is essentially the same as that tab being the only one open in the browser, from the webpage's perspective. How could that break anything?

Update: Nevermind, the right answer is that users probably expect that different tabs pointing to the same website share the same context.

You could open five tabs of Facebook, and you'd probably want each one to share its container with the four others unless you specifically want it not to.

True. It still seems like an unfortunate miss of opportunity since this is essentially an UI problem. It would be great if there was an option to switch the default the other way around: all tabs are opened in their own containers unless you open a tab by "cloning" from an existing tab (for instance, by right-clicking).

Can any browser historian explain why the original models of cookie sharing weren't more like this?

I figure it comes down to some combination of lack of consideration and performance concerns, but that is just speculation.

I suppose restricted cookie sharing is also a lot more complicated for the user.

I just want to be able to open a new tab in a brand new container. Similar to File->New Session in Internet Explorer.

If I want to test my web app with say 4 different identities then figuring out which container is "free" becomes cumbersome.

Extensions can spawn new containers, so this should be easy to implement if you want to.


In fact, "Containers on the Go" seems to do this:


I've been using the tests version of this for some time now. It's great. Keeping work/personal sessions from mixing is really useful (eg: I want my work google account whenever I visit gmail, but my personal one for youtube).

You can also set certain domains to open on certain containers by default.

It's available here for now, but I really hope this ends up making it into firefox itself:


This is great! I have been emulating this feature for years with multiple profiles, but let's get things right: it takes some work and it is hard to teach non-techie folks how to do the same.

Time to test the thing.

How does this compare with using multiple profiles and the -no-remote flag? Does this manage only cookies, or does it also separate local storage (HTML5 session/local/global/web sql database), webcache, window.name caching (if the same tab can use multiple profiles), web history, flash cookies, for those who still have flash installed, etc.

People might get a false sense of security if all of these methods of saving data in the browser are not also separated along with cookies.

Check out https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec... for the details of what is - and isn't - separated between Containers.

Thanks. So it appears that most of it is separated, with the exception of web history and search and form data (which can be identifying). This was also interesting:

"Users can log into multiple accounts on the same site, even when the site does not natively support concurrent sessions. ... Current solutions: Users open multiple browsers (this takes users away from Firefox). A user opens one account in Private Browsing mode (this has a limit of 2 accounts, and forces one to be ephemeral)."

There is no mention here of the -no-remote flag which has been available for many years.

Well, the vast majority of users have no idea of the -no-remote or -new-instance flags, let alone of Firefox profiles.

Generally speaking, Container Tabs try to make you look towards the internet like several users while on your end it behaves like a single-user experience. So, things like history, bookmarks and add-ons are not separated by Container Tabs.

And the technology behind this was developed by the Tor Browser devs and then uplifted into Firefox and reused for this, so this is a proper security/privacy feature, not something that only works on the surface.

So this basically replicates the functionality provided by https://sessionbox.io/

Is multi-process here already?

> Is multi-process here already?


That might bring make me bring back part of my browsing to Firefox. The identities functionality was what made me use Chrome almost exclusively the last two years.

Chrome doesn't have this. Chrome has profiles, which Firefox has had for years.

Switching between profiles in Firefox is the most painful experience ever. Running multiple Firefox profiles simultaneously requires using a terminal command.

Switching between profiles in Chrome involves clicking on an easy to find button, and lets you easily run multiple profiles in parallel. No terminal involved, accessible to anyone.

To be fair, running multiple chrome profiles in parallel kills my (somewhat old) machine (mostly by virtue of having too many tabs in each profile), so Firefox does win there.

Check out about:profiles! While not nearly as nice as the Chrome UI, it is definitely more approachable than using a terminal.

Love that they have decided to add this feature officially. I was using using sandboxed tabs -> Priv8 for years so that I dont have to be logged in to facebook and old emails globally.

The one thing I miss over the old plugins is the ability to set home pages per profile, which I know doesnt really fit in with the new tab ethos of default Firefox, but I would love a plugin to be able to add the functionality back.

Not sure. I've been using separate "Work" and "Personal" profiles at my workplace, and can beautifully have two Firefox sync accounts syncing their own stuff. This limitation of the new Container extension prevents me from using it as I'd never want my personal and work set of extensions, bookmarks, and history to mingle with each other. Big oversight.

Well, that's just the two different use-cases. Container Tabs are not trying to replace profiles.

I tried this feature when it was available only in pilot mode. It was very nice and fitted quite well my uses. But the UX back then could use some improvements. For example, opening a new tab in a specific container took way too many clicks. And you couldn't just to CTR+T because it would always open the tab in the default container, rather than that of the active tab.

One issue I see is that it seems to be based on domains.

(Ex: if I want a container for my streaming apps, there's no way to segregate Amazon Video from the rest of the "shopping" app)

Then again I may be getting too fine grained with my personas but segregating Reddit, HN et al away from my Google account and away from my streaming accounts seems to kick tracking in the ass.

I've been doing multiple containers for multiple accounts opening five different browsers (SF, FX, CR, OP, TR). Now I only need Safari for my regular browsing, Firefox for multiple accounts and Opera for free VPN.

Free, but you get exactly what you pay for: a rather bad VPN bordering on "this is not a VPN at all". Of course, you should not believe a random commenter on HN for that, so hit up https://thatoneprivacysite.net/vpn-comparison-chart/ and use that as a starting point to verify for yourself whether or not Opera's VPN is any good.

If you want security rather than security veneer, use a real VPN instead, with browsers set to either use or ignore the system proxy, depending on what you want out of each browser.

I like this but I like chrome multi profile model better.

I like that extensions are separate for each profile.

For example, I have two separate LastPass accounts. One for work and a personal one. There is no way for me to keep them separate like this.

Firefox already has that sort of profiles, though they are somewhat less visible than the equivalent Chrome feature.

Do you know how ? Through which extension?

No extension at all- it's built in. Try visiting about:profile or launching Firefox with the -p flag.

I would swap to Firefox in a second if I could live with their font renderings. It's just so different than what I am used to in Chrome/Safari/Opera and for some reason its really hard for me to read.

Chrome/Safari/Opera all use the WebKit/Blink font renderer, so yeah, those will look similar. Firefox relies on your OS' font renderer, so maybe try to tweak the settings there.

What OS?

Must be macOS. It looks fine for me in macOS, FWIW.

Firefox has supported multiple profiles for a long time. How is this better?

This is a lighter-weight approach. It's per-tab so it doesn't require a whole other Firefox process to run.

It's not better, it's different. They cover different use-cases. Container Tabs function like a single-user experience that only looks towards the internet like multiple users, so things like browsing history, bookmarks and add-ons are not separated by it.

Can anyone from Mozilla here explain what this is written in, or how it works?

"Containers" makes me immediately think of Docker-like containerized applications, which I suspect is not actually the case here.

It's a Web Extension add-on, so it's written in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.

There should be a post on hacks.mozila.org soon.

Meanwhile, the websites I visit are tracking me across containers :(

This is my most wanted feature for a browser. Anyone knows if every instance has not just a different cookies set but also different canvas fingerprints?

I think you want to read this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15258485

No. Canvas-fingerprinting is mitigated in other protections; they are not per-Container. :/

This is the one feature that keeps me from using Safari.

Can someone give a quick summary of how this differs from Google Chrome "People" accounts? On the surface they seem very similar. Thanks!

Dumb question: Does the implementation have anything to do with containers? E.g., Docker? Or is this just overloading an existing industry term?

Docker didn't invent the term 'container' for... well, _containing_ an environment.

It's not really overloaded here. 'Container' means a contained environment that can see itself, and cannot see other contained environments on the same machine/network. It has the same basic meaning for both Docker and Firefox.

Docker was released in 2013, so if you search for "software container" or "software virtual container", or "chroot container" on Google filtered to before 01-01-2012, you will find plenty of examples of it from the past.

LXC - Linux Containers – was released in 2008... Virtuozzo Containers since at least 2000.

Here's something called Aurora for containerizing CORBA services in 1998: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0054506?no-acce...

Sure, I'm familiar with the history. It's just that, all prior art aside, the term "container" at this point in time has a pretty particular connotation.

I'm on the nightly and it says the extension is not compatible with my version of Firefox. Is this only for <56?

Nightly has this built in actually, though the icon looks a little different. Enable it in about:preferences#general in the Tabs section. The icon looks like a file cabinet.

The built-in functionality doesn’t have nice things like “always open this site in such-and-such a container”.

You can still install the github version in addition to that, which should give you that feature again! https://github.com/mozilla/testpilot-containers#readme

Indeed: that’s how I use it. (I use this to keep work and personal stuff separate because of a couple of services that don’t support multiple simultaneous logins.)

this is _AWESOME_!!!

maybe the best feature since HTML5 has gone mainstream!

i'm so tired of using Icognito Window for that!

Do these separate history as well?

No, but please upvote if you also want this feature ;)


> and online trackers can’t easily connect the browsing.

For what definition of "easily" ?

Huh? Did I just add this and got a "Firefox screenshots" icon with it?

That's a built-in Firefox feature. https://screenshots.firefox.com/ I thought it was only included in Nightly builds but I guess they pushed it to Beta?

I think they pushed it to main? It appeared unsolicited on my toolbar (on Kubuntu) with last update I did -- I would have thought they'd been warded off adding unrequested feature buttons by now. Would it be that hard to have an update page that says "do you want to add $commercialTieInButton"?

There's no commercial tie-in though. It's 100% first-party.

It was more a general point, like for the Telefonica button, the Pocket button, etc., this links to a particular image upload tool though doesn't it? Only looked at it long enough to find if I'd got malware.

Yes but it's run and hosted by Firefox. It's even covered by the Firefox privacy notice.

Is that really so much different than just sticking a button there and then if you don't want it, you remove that button?

If they make it opt-in like you suggest, then a good number of casual users will not understand, because they can't try it without opting in, and therefore ultimately not opt-in, even though they would probably like this feature. (They've had it in the Test Pilot project like the above and got a very good response to it.)

But is it going to work once FF drops add-on support?

Firefox isn't dropping add-on support, they are deprecating their old add-on model.

But yes, this continues to work after Firefox 57.

Awesome! I wish the UI was a little tighter.

Will be cool for many Upwork account brokers

I have just downloaded Firefox Multi-Account Containers but I can't find information on how to use it.I am not an expert.

Is the "initial" version really "4.0.1"?

Why are you so concerned with a version number?

It is just a number.

I love this! I tried to do this by running multiple instances of firefox in separate Docker containers using software I wrote for the task (see subuser.org), and while it works, for more than a few different accounts it gets slow to switch between them because my system won't keep all of the instances of firefox in memory.


I like where your head is at ... if not your choice of words. Check out https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift

How did they know I have multiple personalities? Are they watching me?

They are watching all of you.

one of you told on you

Just a word of caution, anecdotely I installed the Container extension/feature 2 weeks ago when this was discuted on HN, I opened some tabs in different contexts, copied important links I wanted to keep, then decided to hide them, then finally yesterday I wanted to read one of these links, I go look in the menu... Pouf gone, all my links gone... Least to say I was happy.. Therefore not only I have uninstalled this feature but also Test Pilot altogether. I decided from now on to keep things simple because it seems this is only what really works. Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but the sad truth is I don't have much trust in Firefox anymore, I use it because it is to me the least worst browser, not because I really enjoy using it.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact