Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Firefox desktop market share now below 9% (netmarketshare.com)
824 points by ngokevin on Dec 4, 2018 | hide | past | favorite | 740 comments

Reading this breaks my heart. I have been a Firefox user for almost a decade now and I have good and bad memories with it. Since Quantum release my experience with FF has been nothing but exceptional. On a general day I have around ~15 pinned tabs and more than 50 other tabs open and FF handles it like a breeze. The memory usage is good given the fact that my workload is heavy. On a dual-core machine, I am able to restart FF under ~3 seconds.

I have read comments in this thread suggesting that FF's performance is not that snappy but I cannot seem to notice any difference. Maybe my dev senses are not that strong ... maybe the benchmarks do show a difference but I have never felt FF to be any less performant than Chrome.

I am tired of listening to people screaming their lungs out about privacy when their actions don't reflect their opinions.

> “I am tired of listening to people screaming their lungs out about privacy when their actions don't reflect their opinions.

Those screaming for privacy, like myself, are in fact a small minority.

Also regardless of the topic, double standards are rampant in this community.

You’ll often see people screaming against Google but still using @gmail.com because paying for a domain and the price of one coffee per month is too expensive. Or people claiming that they need ad-blockers for privacy, but then screaming against paywalls.

I have run a Zimbra server for several years now, it's a full size enterprise grade email server.

I can run it on a $10 droplet from Digital Ocean. $10 is kinda high just for my email, but the bonus is I host _all_ my family's mail. Wife, kids even mom and dad!

It's been nice not being concerned about email privacy. Zimbra is a great piece of software. I think more people should look into it.

I don't trust myself enough to run my own mail server; did you set up your own backups? What's the uptime / SLA (not that gmail has any but still)? Do you need to set up and manage security yourself?

i'm not the parent poster, but did host my mail own for a while.

99.99+ uptime for mail is generally not as important, as undelivered emails get resend if it wasn't up at the time of delivery.

it might still be a problem, because its technically possible to disable that feature, but its generally done everywhere.

the bigger problem is, iirc, that the biggest mail provider (gmail) pushes unknown mail servers to spam... so you'll probably be forced to use a relay.

thats still not a big problem, because you generally get one from you domain registrar

there are also fully functional mail implementations that you can use right away with minimal configuration such as MailInABox [0]

...still, i've switched to fastmail ~2 yrs ago and won't be going back to self hosted anytime soon, though i do own several servers i could use for that...

[0] https://mailinabox.email/

DO makes backups easy.

It Rarely ever goes down (maybe twice in 4 years? I have to think really hard to remember an outage, it's just kinda always....there.)

I periodically run:

    sudo apt update
    sudo apt full-upgrade
Honestly it takes very little of my time, and Zimbra is a really awesome email system.

I am not running a mail server on DO, but I do have several other services on their VMs, and they will do automated backups for you for a few USD per month.

Zimbra means MySQL. Run for the hills — or migrate to Archiveopteryx or something.

I hope you're checking to see if your IPs are blacklisted or not.

>double standards are rampant

I'm not that bothered about the type of privacy Chrome invades. If someone put a camera in my bedroom I'm bothered but if Google knows I'm thinking of fixing my washing machine and tries to advertise to me it doesn't bother me.

But say that and you get down voted etc by the "people screaming their lungs out about privacy" crowd. So us types kind of keep quiet.

The problem with GMail is, it's too convenient to use, and relatively secure because of 2FA support.

Also, people (including me) think that some newsletters, some bills and receipts are not very personal, so people don't care.

I have two main addresses, one is from a local provider and my all financial e-mails and other stuff is coming to that e-mail address, however they don't encrypt anything.

I also just got a free Proton mail, and will upgrade the account when I'm a little better off. Paid e-mail addresses are not meaningless, but they're harder to justify in most people's eyes.

BTW, I never store anything which makes me uncomfortable, anywhere incl. my brain. That's a much better way of living. Not that privacy conscious people is hiding something, but that's my policy.

> Paid e-mail addresses are not meaningless, but they're harder to justify in most people's eyes.

It's not just paid email addresses. It's paid anything. My father constantly pesters me to tell him where he can get free movies, music, software and so on. He wanted to know where he could make unlimited online backups for free and I told him that stuff costs money. Somehow people have gotten it in their heads that if it's on the internet it's free and they shouldn't have to pay for anything.

> Somehow people have gotten it in their heads that if it's on the internet it's free

The VC funding model of investing for growth has helped to create this perception. The sad consequence is that this has made it difficult to run companies that don’t scale to sizes that interest VC investments.

The thing is that a lot of things ARE free - or, there is a free option available. Piracy is a great example, because it is (was?) free, convenient, and you have pretty much an unlimited selection. Streaming services like Netflix and digital game delivery like Steam have made it easier and more trustworthy than piracy.

Actually, for me piracy was more about availability and unfair pricing. Especially for music.

After I started my job and the prices came down with the help of online music sales and streaming, I bought a lot of CDs and digitally distributed music. Most of them were albums that I already have, because I wanted to support the artists which brought that feelings into my life.

Same is also valid for software, movies, or anything. If I can justify price of a software, I buy it. Otherwise, I use something FOSS instead.

You're right that streaming services have made things easier and more trustworthy. Some people are just cheap and don't want to pay when someone else can pay. I just tell him that he shouldn't pirate things because he doesn't know how to stay safe when doing so. After all, this is the man who has trouble finding porn on the internet.

G Suite from Google is still Gmail, but with a better terms of use and usage of your own domain and thus no lock-in. For people that like Gmail it’s a much better alternative.

My point was that people aren’t willing to vote with their wallet, but being a loud mouth doesn’t cost anything.

And that’s how we end up with monopolies.

On the topic at hand I still remember the people crying against Firefox’s Pocket integration. Well, as Chrome crushes its competition, while becoming more invasive everyday, I hope they are happy with the outcome.

> G Suite from Google is still Gmail...

I think there's a confusion, by GMail, I've pointed to the free offering, not the GSuite, sorry for being not clear.

> My point was that people aren’t willing to vote with their wallet, but being a loud mouth doesn’t cost anything.

Because I think that the same people believe that their e-mail is not that private, so they don't feel the need for voting with their wallets, however they are loudmouths because they're bothered by the breaches or privacy invasions they read/hear. They feel they are either exempt from this or not affected as much, so they're not alarmed.

I’ve been planning on ditching gmail for a while, but I can’t find a domain name for my perineal email (either taken or don’t love) that I want to use for the next 10+ years!!!

> my perineal email

taint.net seems to be for sale.


> BTW, I never store anything which makes me uncomfortable, anywhere incl. my brain. That's a much better way of living. Not that privacy conscious people is hiding something, but that's my policy.

That is a better way of living, but it’s a harder choice for a lot of people.

With recent political trends towards the far right, it could become a harder choice for even more.

> With recent political trends towards the far right, it could become a harder choice for even more.

Yes, you're right. The climate worldwide is not the kindest recently. BTW, with uncomfortable I didn't mean opinions or ideas, but anything which will embrass you or put you in a hard situation if revealed.

As a corollary, this means living an honest life and telling what you think. Generally violence doesn't born from ideas themselves, but the way these ideas are told. So talking politely and without attacking the other side results in a reasonable discourse in most cases. Disagreement is in the nature of communication, and if can be managed well, it's very beneficial to both parties.

It's lucky for you that you don't love anyone your society says you shouldn't, that you never love them in a way your society says you shouldn't, and that you are never forced into a decision your society doesn't approve of.

To be fair it does take much more than $20 worth of effort to migrate all your stuff from gmail. How much more I don't know since I've yet to do it, even though I've been paying for another email service for more than a year.

Man, I pay $50/year for my Fastmail account. I use a custom domain, so total cost is a bit higher, probably something like $60-$70/year, not sure. Moving from gmail to fastmail, given their integrated migration process, was a complete breeze. I still have gmail forwarding set up to my new email address, but I haven't logged into the account for well over two years at this point.

This reminds me to actually check how many emails I received over the past year that came via gmail. Off the top of my head I can only recall a single one, at least from a person I know and wanted to receive email from. I swiftly replied with my new address of course.

I'm going to stop forwarding now, and set up an auto-reply to give people a new address. Not my personal one, but an alias I'll set up in a minute, so that I can shut that down eventually too. Probably useless paranoia, but it floats my boat.

I don't regret the move one bit, and the whole process of setting up my account and moving all ten or so years worth of email from gmail to Fastmail was over and done within a week. Fastmail does what it says on the tin – it's very fast. It also pretty much never fails. In the past two or so years that I've had my account I have only experienced downtime once, for a few minutes. I made myself some coffee and then service was back again.

I am not affiliated with Fastmail in any way, shape or form – just a very happy customer.

How is hosting your data with Fastmail and allowing them to sniff your traffic better than hosting with Google?

Out of the frying pan and into the fire, if you ask me.

It's not the same thing. First of all lawful companies don't do anything that isn't in the terms of service, that being the legal contract that describes your relationship with the company. Otherwise you can sue them. I'm in the EU and in my country there are state agencies that protect the consumer and handle the suing. Filling a complaint for me is easy and I've had great results in the past.

This is why even an upgrade to GSuite is better, being governed by a different ToC.

Google's standard ToC says that their service:

1. may use tracking pixels, web beacons, browser fingerprinting, and/or device fingerprinting on users

2. may collect your device fingerprint

3. can use your content for all their existing and future services

4. can share your personal information with other parties

5. may stop providing services to you at any time, for any reason

6. keeps the rights on your content when you stop using it

And as we've seen, Google indeed does all of the above.

The second problem is one of lock-in. If you're using an email address that's not on your own domain, you're locked into Gmail and the cost of switching is higher, as can be seen by the people complaining about it. But that's a situation of making your bed and then sleeping in it.

And in the case of Chrome, we are already in a situation in which Google can crush its competition and impose whatever standard they want. It's the new IExplorer and the fact that it has an open source core doesn't matter that much when speaking of Google's lock-in on the market, because the Google-free forks are completely irrelevant.

> First of all lawful companies don't do anything that isn't in the terms of service, that being the legal contract that describes your relationship with the company

I'm gonna stop you right there, because a ToC can only enforce certain provisions and companies can change their ToC anytime they want, as per their ToC. It also does not explicitly prohibit them from doing anything not on the ToC, just as it wouldn't prohibit a user from doing something not covered by the ToC. I guarantee you that Fastmail has this clause.[0]

> second problem is one of lock-in. If you're using an email address that's not on your own domain, you're locked into Gmail

That's irrelevant and a false equivalency. You can use Gmail with your own domain.

> in the case of Chrome, we are already in a situation in which Google can crush its competition and impose whatever standard they want.

Again, completely irrelevant to the question that I asked.

[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/white-paper-clicks-bin...

>> "companies can change their ToC anytime they want"

It may be possible in the US, but especially if it's not in the interest of the consumer and if there is a service fee involved, then you need to be notified about such changes in the EU and an online publication won't do. Service providers in my country send me SMS messages and postmail with pickup confirmation required. If they don't have proof that I received that notification, then the new contract does not apply, by law.

Also these contracts can't be applied retroactively. So your point is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

>> "It also does not explicitly prohibit them from doing anything not on the ToC"

Indeed, but the law does. Especially in the EU companies cannot use personally identifiable information without explicit consent. And now with the GDPR, they can't track or profile users without explicit consent either.

We'll see what will happen in the following years, but guess what, Google and Facebook are still doing the same shit, without asking for consent, because they consider that a sign-up is enough, since you've read and agreed to their terms and conditions ;-)

>> "You can use Gmail with your own domain."

I already said in my previous message, along with other messages here, that "even an upgrade to GSuite is better, being governed by a different ToC" and I don't like repeating myself.

Please make an effort to read, or we're going to simply talk past each other.

>> "Again, completely irrelevant to the question that I asked."

You mean the one where you asked about jumping from a frying pan and into the fire? I assumed it wasn't a question related to cooking.

> I'm gonna stop you right there, because a ToC can only enforce certain provisions and companies can change their ToC anytime they want, as per their ToC.

At which point they tell you that they have changed their ToCs

> It also does not explicitly prohibit them from doing anything not on the ToC, just as it wouldn't prohibit a user from doing something not covered by the ToC.

Which is why you check the ToCs to ensure that main classes of poor behaviour that you want to avoid are included in there.

It doesn't scale, at all. Not when I am interacting with upwards of a hundred microservices.

And after a malicious ToC change, the company can immediately act on the policy, meaning if you're even a few minutes late to the party, or if it takes more than a few minutes to completely scrub your data from the website (it does) then your data is now subject to the new ToC.

So the ToC offers no legal protection from data abuse. It's just a nice thought.

Sure, but that's a different discussion altogether. The post I replied to was implying the effort is greater and more complex than most think, and I'm saying it probably isn't – at least not for the common cases. Privacy is a very real concern, but a different conversation.

Since I'm paying them they answer to me. They don't get income from sources other than people paying for email. If they sniff my email they don't have anything to gain from the effort, so they are much less likely to.

I finally did it this year! All the scandals (dragonfly, drone programme, auto sign-in in chrome, grabbing data through auto translate, etc.) were just too much.

Getting away from the convinient variant, for which I paid with my user data, to privacy oriented choices felt empowering.

I went with Posteo for email and calendar (EUR12/pa), went from mostly FF to all-in FFk (donated to Mozilla), from Google search to DDG and Qwant.

It's somewhat more effort. But it is worth it imv.

I am still on Android though. But I installed netguard, which reigns in Android somewhat. The only thing I struggle to find: A good alternative to the Google maps app (open street maps is decent for desktop).

It depends on what you use Google maps for.

There is no alternative (that I was able to find) for the "browsing what's nearby" feature of maps. It allows you to pull up the app and just look around from where you are to find stores, restaurants, museums and whatnot. You can check opening times, reviews, see pictures, all from inside maps.

But, if you are looking for a GPS navigator alternative, there are plenty, and some are much better than maps, IMO. I personally use Sygic on Android, in the free version, and I've found it more accurate than maps in many occasions. It doesn't have the live updates on traffic like maps, but it will take you from point A to point B with a few metres accuracy. While maps sometimes just gets you to the other side of a building, and leaves it to you to figure out that the actual entrance is on the other side, and to reach it you have to drive around half a block, be careful with access restrictions, and go through a traffic light. Sygic just always gets me to the correct place, on the correct side of the buildings, and even signals parking areas nearby.

Google Maps doesn't have a good alternative.

On my phone I try to use OsmAnd on iOS, based on Open Street Map, see: https://osmand.net/ — my experience with this is mixed, where I live (in Bucharest Romania) it definitely has more info than GMaps on points of interest, however it's not as reliable for car navigation or public transit, so it's not as reliable for getting directions.

If you keep using Google Maps (I still do), at least disable the location tracking in your Google Account.

HERE maps has a fairly good reputation (formerly Nokia HERE, now owned by a bunch of German car companies)

Locus/Locus Pro are good for looking at maps, it's nice having half the continent available offline. Depends a bit if OpenStreetMap works well in your area or not, and not much in the way of routing/POI as far as I know.

For public transport, there's transportr and Öffi and probably a bunch of specific ones for different regions - again, coverage depends on where you are.

I use OpenAnd for maps/navigation installed from fdroid (although I've paid for it previously on Play). I find it does everything I want.

Did you mean OsmAnd? I couldn't find anything named "OpenAnd".

Yes. Sorry. When I was typing it I was thinking, "That doesn't seem right!", but I couldn't get my brain in gear.

The smart choice would've been to not use Gmail in the first place. The fact that Google doesn't have your best interest in mind is nothing new. The fact that Gmail invades your privacy by reading your emails to show you ads has been in there from day 1.

I'm saying this, because you started with "to be fair...". As if this was a good explanation for the double-standard your parent poster mentioned. You can still fix it, even though it now takes more time than never having used Gmail at all. Complaining about "the effort" just reinforces the double-standard.

Use something like Fastmail. No hassle with setting up your own domain or email server (although you can use a custom domain) and they offer a tool to migrate your email from any IMAP server (and probably from Gmail as well).

Edit: added 2nd paragraph

> Complaining about "the effort" just reinforces the double-standard.

Another point of view is that this is just the reality. Loads of people are on gmail, and migrating isn't always simple. Pretending it is doesn't make it so, and pointing out that one never should have done it in the first place is a moot point.

As someone with a domain at home and a working email server, I'm still stuck with Gmail as I don't have time to make sure my setup is resilient enough to base my daily emails on...

It's a sad world and we're a very geeky crowd.

> As someone with a domain at home and a working email server

Maintaining your own email server is crazy and not feasible unless you're passionate about email servers.

It's also a false dichotomy. Nobody with any experience and common sense suggests that you should install your own email server. Use FastMail, use Protonmail, use Office 365, heck, use Google's G Suite.

Most such services have import tools that work and the option to work with forwarded emails and external SMTP servers, so migration can be smooth.

Seeing software developers complaining about migration costs makes absolutely no sense.

Just yesterday I migrated a GSuite account to FastMail. I just changed the DNS records and imported the email via FastMail's import tool, which was automatic. And with a @gmail.com address you can just work with forwarding until everybody knows of your new address.

I migrated email addresses several times, including from my old @gmail.com address which now no longer exists. It wasn't a tragedy.

> Maintaining your own email server is crazy and not feasible unless you're passionate about email servers.

Sorry but I think this is FUD and it potentially discouraged people from taking steps to be part of the solution and not the problem.

I’ve run my own mail server for years on a $5/mo Linode VPS, and am not passionate about email servers. It was a little difficult to set up but no more difficult than a lot of weekend projects the smart people on this site undertake. It should not be scary. You can also make the switch gradually by first setting up your MX and forwarding to gmail if you want to take it slow. There’s no reason anyone with a moderate amount of Linux skills and patience can’t host their own Email.

And you have no problems sending mail to Hotmail, and other more stringent mail providers?

The toughest problem I had was for a brief time, Comcast rejected mail sent from my host, but the reject log was sufficient to diagnose the problem. I just needed a fresh IPv6 address.

Thanks, very heartening to hear that this is not a problem!

It's easy to say the smart choice was to avoid it, but I think that's quite a naive comment.

Hindsight is 20/20 and the email landscape is different now than it was then. At the time I got my gmail (back when invites were still a thing) most options available to me were either ISP email or free web email, and gmail was one of the best. Not to mention, I was a lot younger and probably not in a position where paying for email made sense, and certainly not running my own.

For those of us that started many many years ago with gmail and kept it out of an inertia of convenience, now it is difficult to get everything switched off of it.

The difficult part isn't moving emails over. The difficult part is all the accounts and websites online I've signed up on with gmail that I need to switch the email address on. That's going to be a nightmare.

You can keep your Gmail account forever and transition to a new email in a slow pace. By auto forwarding your Gmail to your new account, or if your new email can act like POP or IMAP client to access your old Gmail, this process is painless.

I had a Gmail in the month it was launched and I switched to my own domain (ironically, still in GSuite) in a process that took a few years. Whenever I login into a site with my old email, I would update it to the new one. My current email still connect to my old Gmail over POP3, but it’s mostly empty.

I consider plain text emails to basically be like sending postcards across the internet.

I don't want other people to read them but I'm resigned to the fact that they are.

In that context I'm not all that concerned about Google scanning my email to serve me ads that I'm blocking anyway.

I think people aren’t aware how much information leaks in their emails.

For example your entire online purchasing history is in your email. That is not information that should be public ;-)

It doesn't take that much more. Office 365's base plan is something like 35£/year, plus around 10£/year for a domain. They offer IMAP import so migrating from Gmail is seamless.

Without a good importing tool (warning: the GSuite importing tools are shit), I recommend "imapsync":


After cloning the repository and installing the listed dependencies (some Perl packages available in your Brew / Ubuntu repository already), you can do:

    imapsync \
        --host1 imap.old.com \
        --user1 "old@email.com" \
        --password1 xxxxxxxxxxxxx \
        --ssl1 \
        --host2 imap.new.com \
        --user2 "new@email.com" \
        --password2 yyyyyyyyyyyyy \
        --ssl2 \
        --errorsmax 1000000 \
        --syncinternaldates \
        --useheader 'Message-Id' \
        --noreleasecheck \
        --noexpunge \
Works great for importing to and from Gmail, but you might want to add a folder rewrite for the Sent folder (with --f1f2).

But with FastMail, for those interested, the out of the box importing tools in their web interface work great, so no need for any command line tools.

I've used imapsync in the past to migrate thousands of mail accounts from and old decrepit IMAP environment (with some weird edge cases) to a shiny new IMAP based mail platform.

It's a hugely flexible and versatile tool and it's quite zippy as well, can highly recommend.

Effort, not money. As a Firefox/gmail user who routinely shits on Google, it's mostly the lock-in of any email address that keeps me coming back. I've actually opened a few paid accounts, but effort to switch is real. I gave up partly through switching over the dozens (100s?) of services that send me emails. I would never get to the point where all of my acquaintances and relatives actually use the new address.

Why not setup email forwarding and just wait a few years for people to get the message?

This is precisely what I have done and it's worked great. All services I use (and care about) I've changed to use service specific aliases now and it works fantastically well. Effort wise I'd say I spent probably a couple of days migrating some ten odd years of email from gmail, setting up domains etc. All in all, the migration itself was done within a week. Only maintenance I do on this setup now is send receipts to my accountant, and update credit card details when needed.

Took me 2 seconds. set my gmail account to move everything to my new email and then copy/pasted all the emails using thunderbird

> Also regardless of the topic, double standards are rampant in this community.

Most of us speak out against against Google because we like most of Google and want to continue to use their services, just not to thrilled about some things and want them to shape up, not have them cease to exist completely. It's the difference between being reasoned or extreme.

> paying for a domain and the price of one coffee per month

That's some expensive coffee.

My FastMail account costs $50 / year or $130 / 3 years, thus with a monthly cost starting at 3.6 USD. That's less than the price of a Starbucks Grande Latte.

Google's G Suite, which is still better than free web mail since you no longer have the lock-in, plus a better privacy policy, is $5 per month, which is almost the price of a Starbucks Venti Latte. And this is actually an expensive offering in the business.

So no, it's not an expensive coffee, especially since we are talking about a highly skilled and highly paid demographic.

Also I'm from Romania where we have a lower cost of living and lower wages to go with it, so seeing my Silicon Valley brethren complaining about the price of paying for non-free email on your own domain is really awkward, given the importance of email.

I get it, I hate subscriptions for software too. But not when that service is essential for your profession, your security or your privacy and email is all of the above.

> That's less than the price of a Starbucks Grande Latte.

A cup of coffee is a pretty lousy indication of cost. For some people going into a Starbucks for a $5/€4,40/£3,92 gluten-free-unicorn-sprinkles-ariana-grande-latte may be part of a daily routine, but for others, coffee means using a coffee-maker to brew your own cup for a few cents, or just getting a cup to go at a some kiosk.

My point is that many of us drink such beverages every couple of days at least and in order to pay for your email address basically implies the same effort as buying a Starbucks Grande Latte.

And your email address is your online identity and has plenty of information in it that shouldn't leak, including your entire online purchasing history at least.

I am against paying for crap via subscriptions, I hate the subscriptions trend myself, but email in my opinion is fundamental to who we are and what we do online.

I think that's a pedantic detail that actually ignores the point being made. I've seen the "cheaper the the cost of a coffee per month!" type of phrasing used to commonly refer to Starbucks/etc

I almost never buy coffee out anywhere like Starbucks, but it was easy for me to understand in the context of his post

You can run your own email server via Vultr or DO for $5/month or less. You have to do some work to maintain it so there's the cost of time invested, so maybe two coffees/month. You can also opt for Fastmail or ProtonMail, or similar privacy-respecting email services, and again you're getting it for less than $5/month. I use Fastmail for my main email account and I love it.

I use Tiger Technologies (https://tigertech.net) for hosting mine and my wife's personal sites and email, they are all I need for basic Wordpress/email hosting and they have a superb support team. If I decide I want to get my hands dirty with running a server, I use Vultr.

G Suite for a domain and email is $5-6/mo. A cappuccino in SF I guess is a better analogy.

If you go for the annual plan it's $4.16.

Also the much better deal is the business edition, at $10 per month, which also gives you unlimited GDrive storage. Couple that with something like ArqBackup, Rclone, etc and it gets to be very cost effective, being cheaper than a Dropbox subscription.

Also the Terms of Service for G Suite is meant for businesses and thus much better.

Just be careful when buying apps and books from Google Play. If you don't want to be locked-in, don't purchase anything that can't be migrated.

I keep my gmail because my self hosted email’s ip sometimes gets put on spam lists (probably by gmail admins.)

Agreed. I'm on nightly and it has been stable - even with WR turned on. I've been pushing my family and friends to use FF - but a lot of them are Chrome loyalists. Still - one must persist.

I'd rather not have a world where only chrome and chrome clones exist - and I certainly don't appreciate that Chrome wants me to log in every time I use the browser (and getting more and more insistent at that lately from what I hear)

Firefox Quantum also nags constantly about logging in and syncing devices, not that I'm against it, it's great when you have multiple devices and don't want to install the same plugins, sync bookmarks, etc.

You can choose what to sync between devices. I personally only sync my bookmarks.

That's well and good but I'm replying to the comment above me which stated:

> I certainly don't appreciate that Chrome wants me to log in every time I use the browser (and getting more and more insistent at that lately from what I hear)

What? I've never been nagged for this. I forget the feature exists.

Did you have to disable the requests? Or are you really saying that on a virgin installation, Firefox never tried to get you to login and sync? Are you on Apple/Linux? I was able to disable most of the reminders to sync on both Android and Windows but I eventually gave in, in order to sync all my plugins and bookmarks.

I've been using Firefox since it was Phoenix and Firebird in a zip file as a faster alternative to Netscape.

I am loving Quantum, and I don't understand why Firefox continues to slide.

With this Edge announcement (a new Microsoft Chromium browser), I'm nervous we're getting into not a duopoly, but potentially a monopoly.

> I am loving Quantum, and I don't understand why Firefox continues to slide.

Apparently a lot of Firefox installs are on older systems (think Windows XP/Vista era) from before Chrome took over the world. There's a reason Firefox was the last major browser to drop XP support (they only did so when 52 ESR left support a few months ago!). As those systems get phased out they generally get replaced with systems that come with Chrome preinstalled and that's "good enough" for most people buying them (unlike Internet Explorer back in the day) so they don't seek out alternatives.

> why Firefox continues to slide

They broke extension support. Half of the extensions disappeared (didn't migrate to Quantum). The other half works only partially. One year after Quantum i still have a blank new tab because a custom html file in new tab would require an extension AND a web server.

Sure, it is harder now for non-technical users to shoot themselves in the foot. On the other hand, Mozilla took away control from users. After Quantum I lost all hope.

There might be a problem with your session history files getting locked and therefore Firefox doesn't update them. Could you take a look here and let me know what you find:

Open your current Firefox settings (AKA Firefox profile) folder using either

"3-bar" menu button > "?" button > Troubleshooting Information (menu bar) Help > Troubleshooting Information type or paste about:support in the address bar and press Enter In the first table on the page, click the "Show Folder" button.

In your profile folder, scroll down and double-click into the sessionstore-backups folder. You may see numerous files here. Of particular importance:

recovery.js: the windows and tabs in your currently live Firefox session -- if you check the modified date/time, is this fresh or is it from the time frame that keeps coming back? recovery.bak: a backup copy of recovery.js previous.js: the windows and tabs in your last Firefox session upgrade.js-build_id: the windows and tabs in the Firefox session that was live at the time of your last update Do you see any numbered files, such as recovery-1.js? Firefox may create those when it is unable to store your current session history in recovery.js. Unfortunately, at the next startup, those files are not used automatically.

Note: By default, Windows hides the .js extension. To ensure that you are looking at the files I mentioned, you may want to turn off that feature. This article has the steps: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/show-hide-file-na...


I agree this was rough but things need to be taken into context with this in my opinion.

Given their small "market share", it would seem right to remove a major burden to rapid development (the old extension format, XPI) in favor of open standards (web workers).

It's more maintainable, more in-line with current standards. I am only speaking as a fly-on-the-wall here. Although I am a senior "full stack" developer, I am pretty far removed from any of the day-to-day here.

By wiping the slate clean in terms of extensions, hopefully this will be a small paint-point, quickly forgotten, and things move forward from here.

Re-reading this prior to submit, it seems like I've inserted too many items straight out of the BS generator but I'm ok with it.

"it would seem right to remove a major burden to rapid development (the old extension format, XPI) in favor of open standards (web workers)."

Perhaps. But it sure would have been better if the new extension system were as capable as the old before axing the extensions. The loss in functionality, for me, is unacceptable. At the heart of it, this is what made me give up entirely on post-57 Firefox.

>They broke extension support.

Was this intentional, or simply a consequence the architecture of quantum?

It's hard to compete with a product that is being spread like crap ware bundled with other freeware or pushed through Android or the main search engine on the internet.

From my experience this is the ways most of the people I know came in contact with Chrome. Even those where I've installed FF end up with Chrome. When I ask them why they switched, they don't know. They don't even know where it came from...this is what you get from clicking "Next" without reading...

In fairness - much as I like desktop Firefox, Android Firefox has never felt as slick as Android Chrome. I'd love to switch, but it's got to be good enough.

As FF allows me to install ublock origin, I never seen a single reason to use Chrome on my Android.

I switched back to Chrome on Android, and will stay there until FF Mobile and LastPass start playing together nicely. I'm not sure which party is responsible, but it's a dealbreaker in general for me.

OK, I'm not familiar with LastPass on Android. It sounded too insecure compared to KeePass so I never considered it.

I use Firefox on Android and it's good enough. I don't even notice it's different. Additionally it's amusing to me to see just how far we have come where simply having a functional browser on a handheld device isn't enough.

(Reading this thread and writing this comment from Firefox on my phone)

I think FF Focus is absolutely brilliant an mobile and for everything else (except Facebook) I use firefox with ublock origin. It performs very well and I can nicely sync my passwords and tabs to my other devices.

Firefox Focus used to be based on Blink, which explains its responsiveness.

I think they switched to Gecko lately, but not sure if is still as fast.

I use Firefox Focus as my primary browser (every crap I click on opens in it), and Firefox as my secondary (when I need tabs).

For those on Android, Focus does tabs. The interface is different and more hidden, which is feature-not-bug territory for Focus: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/open-new-tab-firefox-fo...

True, but not very nice to use. For example, if you change the tab, all other pages get unloaded and will reload if you change back to them. Very good for loosing where on the page you where.

It is not a big issue really as FFF (as I understand it) is not meant to be used for tabbing a lot and it prevents the usual tab accumulation.

Firefox has noticeable delays and scrolling performance issues on OSX. I have a top of the line macbook from last year, with i7, 16GB RAM, etc. But even on that it's sluggish and stuttery. I've tried all sorts of performance tweaks, beta/nightly builds - nothing really makes it as snappy as Chrome or Safari. So, unfortunately, I have to go back to those.

> Firefox has noticeable delays and scrolling performance issues on OSX

On your machine perhaps. Not on mine. Just trying to be more precise here.

Not for me it doesn't.

Firefox has improved tremendously. But I guess some people are still missing their favorite features.

For me it's pinch zooming. I've been waiting for it for ages. It's the last issue keeping me from leaving Chrome.

Just tried newest Firefox on macOS and Windows 10, and sadly it still didn't work on either.

This feature is great for hiding flashing sidebars and distracting navigation bars. And of course zooming in occasionally, when the need arises.

For me it's right-click, Translate to English.

There are Firefox extensions to integrate Google Translate for right click on text or web page:


For me, the ability to look up a word from the built-in dictionary on the Mac. But I do use FF at home and only use Chrome at work.

For me it's instant and seamless translations in Chrome.

On mobile? Because it works fine on my Samsung phone. Although, I very rarely use it, so take that for what it's worth.

No, using mac touchpad. I agree with GP, I use it all the time in safari.

I Ihave around 50 tabs in FF, but active only maybe 15-20. On Mac OS I see a standard problem when I connect external monitor after wakeup, FF starts to "eat" memory like crazy, until I either kill it, or it's crashed. I need to restart FF every 2 days to get my memory back. Here is screenshot from App monitor: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rh133wnhk1wgbe2/Screen%20Shot%2020...

Sometimes, after 2 days of work each worker consumes ~7Gb of RAM (on machine with 16GB of RAM)...

P.S. mostly opened documents in google doc, gmail, calendar, JIRA/Confluence...

There is a well-known bug[1] with non-standard resolutions. Try changing the resolution and see if it makes any difference. If not, please file a new bug :). Otherwise you can see if you can help fixing the issue. Unfortunately, it requires some re-engineering of core graphics processing and they are working on it, but it'll likely take a few more months to fix completely.

[1] I think this was the bug I thought about: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042, see also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1422090

I regularly have several hundred tabs open without issue. I have occasionally had over a thousand in very long running sessions.

I’ve been a very happy Firefox user since Phoenix days.

Killing off the add-on I still needed firefox for ended my last usage of it. Maybe they should have done that last?

My problem with the new FireFox is simply that I don't like it. I like it better than Chrome, but I was never a Chrome user (I've been using Firefox since the very beginning). I'm better off using a fork that still allows for enough customization that I can make it behave the way that suits me best. Since I can use forks in a way that is no less (or marginally less) secure, they are my best option.

The day Firefox integrates a seamless translation solution (Bing/Google/anything) is the day I get rid of Chrome from all my devices.

I have tried using Firefox several times this year, but on a Macbook with only 8gb of RAM the RAM usage was far too big compared to Chrome. It made the rest of my computer sluggish. And Firefox itself was slower than Chrome, one of the examples for me is Youtube. Yes Youtube is Google, but I use it often enough that it was too slow for me to stick with firefox.

Try the YouTube Classic Addon in the Mozilla Extension Store. It disables the new styling for YouTube that makes it sluggish on Firefox.

> I have read comments in this thread suggesting that FF's performance is not that snappy but I cannot seem to notice any difference.

I use Firefox (Nightly) on a 2015 MBP and I do think it feels less snappy than Chrome.

If it didn't have Container tabs, I might switch back to Chrome, despite very much wanting Firefox to succeed. Performance is key.

I get your point but I often wonder if by stuffing everything through a networked document renderer hasn't caused a lot of those performance issues.

Rendering a page is expensive enough, but you have a generation of programmers who only know javascript (and for good reason, the web is an incredible software deployment system). But when everything is a web-app, then the renderer that does the parsing and execution needs to be optimised so hard that the code might as well be proprietary.

That's how I feel about chrome. Parsing and rendering websites today is /hard/ and we're not helping things by pushing more and more and more into our browsers. Of course it will become a monopoly.

well to be fair sometimes my firefox makes really really strange things. sometimes our internal sites won't work, because firefox resolves a IPv6 address (that is also in our network but for another domain.) when the thing has no IPv6 address.

i.e. git.example.com has the IPv6 and sometimes sentry.example.com resolves the ipv6 of git besides not having any IPv6 AAAA entry at all. I could not find out why that is happing, since it's only happening in FF.

besides that, I also think the developer tools got better, but are still not on par with Google Chrome. (At the moment I primarly use Firefox, besides when the bug occurs than I open these services in Safari or Chrome)

It's actually turned into a benefit for me that the developer tools suck. I also use FF for browsing and then Chrome for debugging. Which is nice when a coworker is watching me debug over my shoulder because autocomplete never reveals the incredibly basic shit I google on a day to day basis.

Turns out firefox uses DNS over HTTPS to resolve DNS names (if enabled), maybe you want to turn that of and check if it changes anything. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Trusted_Recursive_Resolver

The only thing I use Chrome for is deeeep.io . It works better in Chrome. Everything else is Firefox

E: too many e's

I was a dedicated user of FF since 2005/6 till about a year ago. I don't why I switched to Chrome, but since then haven't touched FF.

I need an app like Fox Clocks, which worked in FF only for a long time, but now is available on Chrome too.

> I have read comments in this thread suggesting that FF's performance is not that snappy but I cannot seem to notice any difference.

I tried to switch from Chrome to Firefox a few months ago but I had a terrible experience using Hangouts with a customer for two hours. The Firefox degraded until a point of no return and that sucks when you are talking with a customer. I initially blamed the network but there was no signal of network issues.

> I tried to switch from Chrome to Firefox but I had a terrible experience using Hangouts

So, you're saying Google's anti-competitive tactic of degrading and not supporting other browsers worked on you. Did you know there's a name for that tactic? Embrace Extend Extinguish.

Did you consider using another, more neutral video conference system?


I use FF for normal browsing and Chrome for Google based stuff that requires an account, like Gmail, YouTube, Docs, etc. Besides not having ANY performance issues with FF I think it is good practice to separate most of your accounts from normal surfing.

Just today I ran into a weird bug in Google Drive's document editor where selecting 'paste without formatting' from the context menu resulted in a pop-up saying 'These actions are unavailable via the Edit menu, but you can still use: Ctrl+C Ctrl+V Ctrl+X'.

In Chrome: no problem at all.

This is not a weird bug. It’s Google tailoring their products for their own browser and ignoring the others (Safari has the same “issue”). It’s their prerogative to do so, but I think they’re risking getting hit by antitrust for these kinds of antics in the future.

I ran into the same issue and had the same thoughts. The ironic part is Hangouts might be extinguishing Firefox, but it's also extinguishing itself. Google doesn't maintain it, it's running on autopilot and will likely be shutdown in 2019.

Well they won't have a choice soon, Hangouts is extinguishing next year.

> Did you consider using another, more neutral video conference system?

We pay for G Suite so I don't expect to pay for another service. I love Zoom btw.

When using a Google property (particularly a niche/slated for death property), expect it to work better in Google's own browser.

I'm not sure which is likely to be lower ranked at Google - Edge compatibility for all those end users for whom changing browsers is too difficult or Firefox where compatibility is probably easy but the users can probably figure out the message of "works better with OEM branded components (or browsers)!"

Been really enjoying Firefox, especially after Quantum. More devs should support and use it, lest we be beholden to Chrome for the rest of time.

I donated to the Mozilla Foundation today when I heard about this trend coupled with the rumor of Edge's sunsetting.

Even if the money is simply spent on marketing, I think that could be a good thing.

Marketing should not be underestimated.

I actually tried switching. I found Firefox to be still slower than Chrome. At least on Google sites it may not be their fault but knowing where to put the blame doesn't help me on my end. Marketing doesn't seem like the likely fix.

Are you on Mac? If yes, it's not a feeling, it's a real problem Mozilla is trying to address but have yet to crack. Firefox is an order of magnitude more performant on windows and linux.

Hasn't Firefox been around for longer than Chrome...? It's a bit off-putting when they can't seem to solve popular platform issues.

I've been on Chrome for a long time, tried to switch to FF when Quantum came out and couldn't hear myself think over the sound of my laptop winding up.

Yes it is. Given that their team is top notch and their intent has been great so far, I will go with "it's a freaking hard problem and google could afford spending millions of dollars to solve it" kind of explanation.

Another reason could be that Google optimizes both sides of the Chrome/Google webapp interaction but doesn't care very much about optimizing for any other browser than Chrome.

Once you realize that not being evil isn't a priority at Google anymore this explanation actually makes some sense.

I've never had any issues on my Mac. Then again, I'm using an MBA 2012 sans Retina. If you are using displays with "non-standard" resolution (including Retina), even external ones, then you can refer to my other post[1] for background.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18599707

Nope, Windows. Google.com itself spends at least 1 second switching its logo placeholder to its image on Firefox. See here for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18055952

Google Chrome is probably talking HTTP3 to its own sites, so not sure that's a fair test.

This isn't because of that. Although even if it was, my entire point was that at the end of the day if Firefox is slower, even if it's Google playing dirty, that's going to make users like me not want to use it over Chrome.

For personal email I'm on FastMail, but my work email is still Gmail (not my choice). I found Gmail to behave like shit in Firefox.

Then I tried it in Chrome and found that Gmail behaves like shit in Chrome too.

The solution however was to drop Gmail's web interface. Switched to a desktop client. If you're on MacOS I think MailMate is the best.

Couldn't be happier. And this advice is independent of your browser choice.

PS: the fact that Google's online properties are optimized for Chrome should make you realize that Chrome is the new IExplorer and it's our fault for allowing it to happen ;-)

I'd support it if it felt like a first-class citizen on macOS. It's ironic that everyone decries Electron for not being native, then says you should use Firefox when it violates so much about the platform that it's not even funny.

A bug about overflow scrolling (the default bouncing when you scroll over in macOS) has been open for years. It doesn't fit in.

Does Apple provide a correct specification for implementing overflow scrolling on custom window controls? Or is a default behavior that only Apple-blessed graphic components have? Failing to follow the Apple guidelines would be bad for Firefox. If the issue is not having a spec, we'd be talking about Apple actively sabotaging apps like Firefox.

I'm a Firefox user on macOS and I don't remember issues with scrolling. I don't use a trackpad, maybe that's the issue?

My main machines (both personal and work) runs macOS and I find Firefox to fit in fine. Certaintly does what I expect 99.9% of the time. Scrolling for instance seems to work as expected (and on par with Safari which I occassionally use). Can you share more examples?

> Can you share more examples?

Keychain does not work, FF57 killed KSE.

Sadly, that problem is not specific to MacOS :-/

On Linux with KDE that web-extension change killed the kwallet integration too. But you are right when you are saying that it degrades the user experience of MacOS users :-(

There used to be a proper Mac fork of FF (Camino), maybe it’s time to revive that

Camino was fantastic, used it back in the day. :)

I'm not sure what Mozilla's deal is these days, to be honest, but Firefox really just doesn't feel like it fits in on Mac. It's frustrating, because I want to support it... but I just end up back in Safari because it feels far more smooth and integrated.

I got into using macOS later on but after 10 years of Firefox I had no issue with it on the Mac. I guess I possibly did not even notice the bugs mentioned. Ironically I couldnt use Chrome after beta cause I was too used to how Firefox works.

I was originally using chrome for pretty much everything, but I started getting annoyed with the performance hiccups and I wasn't switching over to Safari because of the failure of the extension ecosystem ($99 to publish an extension?). Firefox being the best choice out there has been positive to the point where I don't have Chrome installed on anything other than my phone.

I really would like to say that I find it ridiculous that mac users consistently bash Firefox due to feeling it doesn't belong while they use Google Chrome.

How is Google Chrome more AppleOS then Firefox? Granted I can't stand AppleOS and find the UI to be totally frustrating still in 2018 and how old it feels. How is Firefox any different then Google Chrome?

The reason was Mozilla killed embedding. Making everything an XULRunner app was supposed to be the future solution, but precluded native apps like Camino and K-Meleon from doing their thing, and while Mozilla had "reasons" I thought and continue to think it was incredibly shortsighted. Look at all the Chromium and WebKit shells. You just can't do that with Gecko on desktop (this may be changing on Android, though).

It's odd that firefox doesn't use the osx certificate store

It's a matter of opinion at this stage. I trust Mozilla more than say... Lenovo or Dell that both shipped rogue certificates

Firefox doesn't use certificate store on any OS. Only the ESR for Windows has an option, off by default, for respecting the cert store.

It's sad, but necessary. The OS certificate stores have been a circus for so long now that nowbody take it seriously anymore.

Pinch to zoom is also non-existent so Firefox becomes useless for a many adults/elderly with poor eye-sight or even just many other users who like to browse and zoom on text/pictures etc. It's so frustrating that this feature is not available in Firefox when you are promoting it. The absence of this feature in my small survey is the main reason people quit using Firefox.

I'm honestly a bit confused. This is the second comment I've seen regarding the lack of this feature. It's not one I ever use purposefully, so maybe I just don't understand what's missing. But, with Firefox on my Samsung Galaxy, I can zoom in and out of text and photos by pinching, with no issues at all. Was it a long time ago when you last tried it perhaps?

Latest version on MacOS It's one of the primary gestures of MacOS, and is in heavy use with casual users. It's f.x the primary method of reading material on websites that my parents use.

(The trackpad gesture, is what you're getting at)

I think they mean desktop Firefox on a touchscreen laptop, rather than mobile Firefox. Personally, I can't imagine trying to pinch-zoom on a desktop, but maybe I'm just old.

They're talking about a gesture that's specific to the Macbook trackpad; namely, the implementation you see in Safari, which is not the typical browser 'zoom' function that increases the size of elements and reflows the page, but rather zooms in to show you a subset of the DOM canvas as rendered, like mobile browsers do. It is definitely a handy feature but to characterize it as a missing 'standard' functionality I don't think is fair. No desktop browser had this functionality until Safari ported it over from the mobile version a few releases back as I recall, though Chrome has since copied it.

On Microsoft Surface in tablet mode I often want to pinch zoom. It works but it's limited to the discrete zoom levels that you see with Ctrl+ and Ctrl- so you don't get the smooth zoom you get on Chrome. I still prefer FF for a variety of other reasons so to me it's just a nitpick.

I would love to use Firefox more for dev, but until it has a first class way to disable CORS, I can't. "CORS Everywhere" is not sufficient (it alters responses, but does not actually disable CORS, which doesn't cover all needs).

Chrome I can at least disable CORS via the command line, and Safari does it best by putting it in a Developer menu that I can easily toggle.

Firefox's dev tools also seem to still be behind — I haven't seen a good way to inspect WebSocket frames, for instance.

I would really prefer to use Firefox due to Mozzila's stances on privacy, especially in contrast to Google; however, I have to use the tool that lets me actually get work done.

I love using Firefox as my daily driver, and I can always pop open chrome if I really have to. What kind of life do you lead where your browser needs to have CORS constantly disabled?

This can be helpful in development scenarios. I’m supporting a team that uses localstack to support local development against some AWS services. Unfortunately, the CORS settings for localstack break the development environment. With Chrome allowing them to disable from the command-line, I can provide a shortcut to launch with degraded security, no plugins, no user settings, etc. My only wish is that Chrome would make it more obvious that it’s running with these protections disabled.

You should be setting your server to set cors to allow all not disabling it in your browser.

This is what we do while running docker for local development with node.

At the very least, CORS should be disabled for localhost. I build interfaces using create-react-app, which launches a dev server on localhost:3000 (useful for things like live reload), making requests on a go api on localhost:5000. On production, both are on :80 and the backend serves frontend production files. This is annoying to alter the application code just to handle dev environment (although, this already happen in many other places, so it's not critical).

Not sure if it might have this but have you tried using Firefox Developer Edition? I would suggest if disabling CORS is missing to request it for Firefox Developer Edition. Its Firefox bleeding edge with some developer focused plugins out of the box.

Why not just configure your server or a proxy to add the necessary headers that unlock CORS restrictions.

The web server is configuring CORS policy properly, but the browser is making client-side calls to localstack. As far as I can tell, localstack has hardcoded a CORS policy that is a mismatch for the requests being sent.

The cleanest solution is to extend the dev pipeline with a proxy for localstack. It won't take me long to knock that out, but it's not something I can prioritize at the moment.

Because having code that behaves differently on development and production is never a solution, it's a workaround. Having bugs that can't be reproduced locally is the worst thing that can happen to a developer. So yeah, you can _just_ put environment settings if you have no other possible way, but you should really avoid it if there is any other one (like using chrome with CORS disabled, here).

Disabling CORS in your browser is not representative of production. Serving CORS headers is.

Mentioned this in another response. In this case, that requires the addition of another component. The app itself is serving a valid CORS policy. The stub we're using to support S3 development offline (LocalStack) ignores the configuration it's passed.

I agree with you that fixing the headers (via a proxy in this case) is the right solution. I'm just not able to prioritize right now.

Beyond that, there are always going to be occasions where developers, security analysts, and testers need to bypass default security enforcement. I'd like to see every browser provide a way to make these adjustments for a one-off session (e.g., via a command-line switch). It's an efficient solution that I can offer when I come across a nasty hack living permanently in a developer's web configuration.

By that same argument, using Chrome with CORS disabled is just as bad, if not worse. If you only test in Chrome with CORS disabled, how do you know that CORS works at all?

Because in real companies the IT department needs a real good reason, or a large number of devs that need it, to reconfigure a server that way.

If you're not a lone wolf, or working in the SV bubble, the IT and security departments are going to tell you to go pound sand.

Not really. In lots of relatively large companies there is a good relationship between infrastructure, development and security teams and they will work to find a solution that works for everybody.

This is how it works at my work.

CORS is allowed while running locally and then set while running in development and finally production.

It's 2 lines of code with most modern web frameworks with junior level knowledge required. Actually, any people with decent dev skills (any people that receives money for code should...) add a conf switch for that since the begining of the project.

I don't buy your comment at all.

>My only wish is that Chrome would make it more obvious that it’s running with these protections disabled.

I know this is beginning to become off-topic, but why? Presumably, if you're using a flag that has to be run from the command-line, you're either doing it on purpose or using hardware you don't own (and a keylogger is a much greater risk than anything else at that point)

I can't speak for OP, but for me the problem is that I likely already have normal Chrome windows open when I start a "special" Chrome instance with a private profile and other settings. So now when I see a Chrome window I would like to be sure whether it's my normal user profile or the special profile.

In practice, it's not a problem for me, because the presence or absence of my usual row of extension icons and profile photo is enough of a clue.

But I could see where someone who doesn't normally sign into Chrome, or who doesn't have very many extensions in their normal Chrome profile, could have trouble distinguishing it from their a profile. The windows will tend to look pretty similar.

Exactly. If I need to run a browser in a special configuration, I want to take every precaution to avoid using it for anything but the intended purpose. Since I disable my profile and extensions, I get similar cues.

The problem I see is that not everyone takes the same precautions. And plenty of developers accumulate these sort of tweaks and hacks in their daily driver without realizing or remembering that they've crippled their own security posture.

From a UX perspective, my preference is to make it clear when normal security mechanisms are disabled.

I set up a separate profile for debugging stuff - you may want to do this anyway since you'll be free to install development extensions willy nilly.

Then you can change the theme for that profile which makes it obvious which instance you're using.

I do the same for myself, including an obnoxious theme. Not all developers are this cautious.

Chromium pops up some yellow bar with a warning when you use those flags. Isn't Chrome doing the same?

There's a temporary warning.

Most folks set up a little proxy--or configure CORS if the other end of the pipe is owned or cooperative--rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater due to inability to disable an important security measure.

angular dev environment already comes with that proxy incorporated.

Curious what use cases you have for disabling CORS?

Is it for 3rd party domains and APIs or response that you control? Either way, controlling it in browser doesn't sound like the right way.

For testing a client side app in development locally against a remote API, disabling cors is really handy.

I have localhost.com in my hosts file and a local web server to run around it, but it's still really frustrating not being able to turn it off entirely.

Obviously I don't have context on your work, but in general, do you have control over remote API?

If yes, you can setup different environments (dev, staging, production) and set CORS accordingly for each of them.

If no, how is it working in production?

I develop browser based video games that talk to a central API that I control.

I mostly have the setup you describe, and most development happens against a CORS-free staging server. But it's often necessary to build a local prod version that is identical to the live version for debugging or analysis, that plays against real players and reads/writes to the same data store.

It's an edge case, and in the past when I've done web development simply turning off CORS on staging has trivially solved any issues. But it does feel a bit like the developers of the browsers have chosen not to include the feature in a "we're smarter than you, trust us, you don't want this" kind of way. For the most part, they're probably right.

I see.

Just a wild idea that I haven't tried yet:

Would it work if you configure your etc/hosts to point production domain to localhost and open the production domain in the browser?

I'm gonna try this when I get free time.

This is one of my gotchas (and I prefer to do so from the commandline). I also need a good extension manager and a session/tab manager. The extension manager makes it easy to disable extensions that are only used occasionally. The session manage makes it easier for me to keep tab count down.

I have found a few session manager options on Firefox but most suffer from permission bloat and poor UI.

Last I checked, there was nothing to make it easier to manage add-ons.

I just switched to FF and had a similar requirement. I found "Session Sync" to be a good replacement for what I used in chrome (FreshStart).

Thanks. I haven't checked in a few months, so I'll give it a look.

Out of couriosity, wouldn't it be an option to implement CORS? From my understanding, it's just a few static headers.

Agreed with the missing WebSocket inspection.

I use Firefox for development, but I use safari (privately) and edge (professionally) for browsing, and see no real advantages to using either Firefox or Chrome for that.

I think modern Firefox is a much better browser than Chrome though, but Mozilla certainly lost the PR war and to no fault but their own, because Firefox sure sucked for a long while.

> I think modern Firefox is a much better browser than Chrome though, but Mozilla certainly lost the PR war and to no fault but their own, because Firefox sure sucked for a long while.

This gets said often, but I've been using Firefox continually since 2003 and I've never noticed it sucking.

I switched from Chrome to Firefox after the google login controversy, and have been happy with the transition too.

The only only thing that really annoys me is that when you snap a tab out of a window into a new window, the gesture is similar with snapping a tab into the favorite bar, and I end up with lots of "New Tab" or other unwanted favorites.

Also a small personal annoyance. I got into the habit of always launching the browser by clicking the shift key on the windows task bar icon, so that I always get a new window, irrespective of whether some session is already running or not. But in firefox, when no session is running, launching with the shift key pressed results in the "safe mode" prompt. I wish there was a way to disable that.

You can middle-click on the taskbar icon to do that -- and it works for other apps, too.

If you haven't used Chrome, no wonder you haven't noticed Firefox sucking. But a side-to-side speed and responsiveness comparison of Chrome and Firefox is unfair even today.

I have used Chrome and Firefox side-by-side, consistently since Chrome's original release. I have used Netscape and Internet Explorer since before both existed. I have performance gaming rigs of all generations, and I develop software. I have multiple generations of Apple machines as well. I run Windows and Linux.

Firefox doesn't suck, and matches Chrome. But there's no accounting for user behavior. I have seen user behavior that is mind-blowingly stupid, and subcultures of user activity and tendencies trace well with product loyalty trends.

Some user subcultures are retardedly dependent on browser extensions, never clear their cache, retain cookies for the lifetime of their laptop battery, and seemingly need hundreds of tabs open. And none of this shit makes sense to me.

These are likely the same people who carry around phones on the brink of overheating while locked, and in their pocket, because they have to have a thousand apps installed, in order to feel like they're getting the $1,000 phone they paid for, I guess. Their emails are constantly peppered with "sent from [app|device|service]" signatures, and they claim microphone permissions are why ads target them.

Honestly, if you've been blaming the browser, it's more likely that you're the one being your own worst enemy.

All the users I forced to use Firefox, decided that Chrome was faster, and they were more than 100s of them.

( And as a user I knew that too. I just wanted to support Firefox. )

So saying Firefox Doesn't suck may be partially right. As we will have to define "suck" first. But saying it is as fast as Chrome during Firefox 4 and early Chrome era is just the same as saying earth is flat.

So...what are you trying to say here? That if you don't feel comfortable with a browser, you are the issue? That if you have different use-cases and behavior, you are the issue? Each browser has different look and feel and is unique in its own way, even if some differences are tiny.

And, yeah, if Mozzila likes dropping numbers, nothing has to change.

Chrome handles PDF and printing (with the preview) better than Firefox in my opinion. I probably like Chrome a bit more for dev work as well but as a user they're pretty similar with the exception of the PDFs that I mentioned.

"Chrome handles..." can be said for a lot of things really.

Just this last month I've had Firefox crash tabs daily that Chrome handled perfectly fine, I've seen it crash the entire browser when Chrome did just fine. Underlying both those issues was a janky Windows install that was partially broken. But still, Chrome carried on like a trooper.

I've even just switched back to Linux and immediately saw Firefox stumble over scrolling frame rates. That was caused by using an Nvidia graphics card and the proprietary drivers on Kubuntu which was a bit janky again to say the least. But Chrome carried on through again with no problem.

Just today I've switch to an AMD graphics card and the opensource drivers on Fedora and only now is Firefox seemingly playing nice.

It's a great browser (though Dev Tools don't seem as good to me) and I love the containers but it does seem it needs a bit more of a particular environment to operate just right whereas Chrome 'just works' more of the time. That is possibly why lots of people say 'fine for me' (it is for me now, yey!) but others say "it's broken" or 'slow' or whatever.

When I notice a difference in responsiveness between Chrome and Firefox, it's usually due to the webpage being Chrome-optimized. I don't know why: maybe it was developed and tested under Chrome, maybe it uses features that work better on Chrome because they were developed and pushed by Google, or maybe the differences between the rendering engines favor Chrome.

Google's own websites are some of the major culprits. The funny thing is that similar webs don't have this issue, and I don't notice any slowdowns that push me to do side-by-side tests.

I've noticed worse performance of firefox on macos compared to windows, to the point where firefox is unusable on many websites on a 2 core macbook pro. Even fucking facebook is slow on firefox, even with recent improvements.

Then this is likely an edge case/bug you are encountering because it is definitely not something I experienced.

I use Firefox daily, alongside Chrome for a very long time. Firefox manages system resources much better, works way more stable, and behaves the way I want, without any exceptions.

Chrome feels like an untamed animal which does stuff without telling you, and I don't like it.

I use both and could never feel the speed difference. On the contrary the lack of control over browser behavior in chrome is a constant annoyance.

I mean, I use both daily and this just isn't true.

It's not that I haven't used Chrome from time to time. I just meant that I use Firefox as my primary browser.

Neither browser sucks. They are both quite good.

This gets said often, but I've been using Firefox continually since 2003 and I've never noticed it sucking.

To this day, my browsing experience is still worse with Firefox than it was before 57, because so many useful little add-ons have never been replaced or have been replaced only with inferior versions. In some of those cases, that useful functionality can't be provided in the new environment, because the APIs to support it aren't there. I was unpleasantly reminded of this just a few days ago, when the same problem infected the latest Thunderbird update.

More seriously, I am running into increasing numbers of sites that simply don't work properly with Firefox. Sometimes this is because of the privacy/blocker extensions I use, but often the problem persists even if I disable those. Whether it's due to bad web developers doing Chrome-only things or bugs in recent versions of Firefox, the unfortunate result is still the same from the user's point of view.

This I can relate with, but I would like to note that Firefox seems to be continually expanding its APIs and regaining functionality that was lost. In particular, [Tridactyl](https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl) (which tries to reimplement Pentadactyl, a kitchen-sink extension API consumer) works rather well. There are still some pain points, like the keyboard shortcut API which still hasn't been merged, but I am hopeful they eventually will be.

I too experience privacy extensions breaking websites frequently, since I'm a heavy user of those, but so far I have never encountered a case of a website that was truly broken under Firefox. It was always one of my settings and worked under a clean profile.

They rushed it and I find it hard to not see it as a giant "screw you".

They didnt release the specifications early enough for people to rewrite their addons and at the end of ESR52 there where still multiple bugs open which prevented people from porting their addons. We didnt even get a normal 1 year ESR support frame for gods sake. All that ignoring the fact that there was no warning for the end users that all their security addons were disabled after the automatic update.

I am still furious about the absolute arrogance and carelessness Mozilla showed here.

I was very pissed at them for exactly this reason and I still am to some degree. I would love to find an acceptable alternative that goes back to the roots, so to speak. For instance, I've been looking at qutebrowser, but it's still too limited (and might remain so for some time).

But Chrome as an alternative? That's not even on the table. Firefox is definitely the lesser of two evils.

This. Ever since the plugin fiasco, it’s really hard for me to see Firefox as anything other than a worse Chrome. Extensibility was Firefox’s main selling point; and they pissed that away.

I'm just amazed that you can't even manually remap keyboard commands. Seriously Mozilla? $500 million/year in funding and you can't support that customization?

An even better example is "Other Bookmarks". https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/default-bookm...

They simply changed the default bookmark location with no option to change it back.

I need an addon to change the default bookmark location to keep my earlier filing approach.

I mean really?

Thanks for the heads-up! I locally maintained Pentadactyl for my own browser until Mozilla banned unsigned addons (which ticked me off enough to write a Hiter parody[1]). That extension was also what got me into vim.

I'm still upset that they broke custom keyboard shortcuts for ... two years now? All the replacements will only remap keys after a tab's JS has loaded. I used to be able to just zoom through the tabs with shift-j and shift-k, but now it will randomly stop on pages that need to reload, which breaks the whole experience.

I've had Super NES games that offered key customizations, and had much less memory and money to work with. That's really disappointing.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8

For several years, Firefox was punishingly slow and had awful tab control compared to Chrome. It may not have 'sucked', in the sense that I still vastly preferred it to IE or even Safari, but switching was an immediate and dramatic improvement.

There have been major speedups since, and container tabs help fix the other issue. At this point, I still find Firefox worse than Chrome in a large number of ways, but they're small and often preference-based - but lots of people seem to agree that were a lot of users lost (or not gained) during a stretch where Firefox was pretty much objectively behind.

I use FF too, and I notice it sucking periodically, often after a big update - as things will - there have been periods of a month maybe two times in the last 10 years where I had to switch to another browser because it sucked too bad.

Sadly this is my story also. I use Vivaldi as my main browser now, which is Chromium based. Firefox does work awesome and is normally what I program my scripts through headlessly but in personal use FF just gets bad periodically.

I used Chrome since its early alpha versions on Linux, and I have to disagree. Even in its first days Chrome was a far superior browser speed, responsiveness and security wise. Firefo caught on some of these nowadays, but not nearly e ough for me to switch back.

The same for me until few time ago when Chrome weight and features start to be more nice for Alphabet then me.

I ditch all Alphabet services, I do not like to waste my system and network resources for it's sake.

When you log out, Firefox will block it and warn you that you are about to close number of tabs. When you select "OK", your tabs are gone.

But Chrome will quietly exit, and when you start it next time, will offer to restore the tabs that were open last time. Chrome approach wins, hands down.

That's a setting in both browsers. Default is "Start with Startpage or empty page" in both browsers as well. You can always select "Restore last session" in both browsers.

Defaults really matter. Probably 1% of users would ever think to look for a way to change that behavior.

I think Firefox for a long time tried to optimize for those users who do want to tweak their software, and doing that can even be a way to make superior software (instead of aiming for the lowest common denominator), but it is certainly not the right approach to maximizing _web browser market share._

I didn't use Firefox for many years (because I thought it sucked; slow, bad defaults, always apologizing in this anoying way for having crashed the last time I used it) but I now use it every day again (though not as my default browser; I tend to keep all the major ones open) and I'm glad to see Mozilla recently seems to have changed their priorities and focused on usability and performance. I hope it's not too late.

When I last installed Chrome in a fresh installation of Windows (so no saved settings from previous installations), it defaulted to an empty startpage. Might just have been me, mind.

The problem is that if Firefox is getting this default wrong, what else are they getting wrong? And it should realize user state is sacred, I would even expect if I quit browser with something written in the address bar (or search bar, etc), when it starts up again, it should be able to preserve this half-entered user input!

I'm very happy that when I close my browser it kills all my tabs. If I really want something back I just view it from the history.

> I would even expect if I quit browser with something written in the address bar (or search bar, etc), when it starts up again, it should be able to preserve this half-entered user input!

I'm pretty sure no one expects nor wants this. You're definitely in a minority here. The problem you describe isn't very technical, it's simply that you want something else than most people else and you don't want to take the time to configure your browser to how you want it to behave.

Lots of people actually expect that. It's how phone apps work. There's no concept of "closing an app" in the iOS and Android guidelines. You just get the app out of the way.

I think the lack of improvements in desktop UX in the last 10 years is making every desktop OS to slowly adopt mobile UX conventions. Some of those new conventions are a step back.

I’m pretty sure watt is right...

But this isn't wrong, it's just your entirely subjective personal preference being different to someone else's.

Personally, I don't like it when browsers implicitly keep tracking things when I close the application and then fire up some half-baked version of the same stuff when I come back later. If I want to remember where I am, I can easily bookmark some or all of my tabs.

Firefox has had a particular problem in recent versions where it seems to think it crashed on the previous shutdown, even though there was no user-visible evidence of this, and then tries to restore the previous session even when it otherwise wouldn't. That's not helpful if your previous session involved shopping for surprise Christmas presents for the SO who is now standing behind you as you open the browser again several hours later for some entirely unrelated purpose, in a totally hypothetical example.

> when it starts up again, it should be able to preserve this half-entered user input!

I wouldn't expect this at all!

I'm sure I remember Chrome not preserving session state as its default setting either. It's been so long since I configured either of them though...

Isn't this google applications will track what you do all the time, and even after you close the application and restart it knows who you are and what you did?

Except for tabs in incognito mode. I wish there was an 'OK' for Chrome too. Especially since it is so easy to hit Cmd-Q instead of Cmd-W.

Both browsers have this configurable in settings. So they just use different defaults, which depends on personal preference.

But which is the natural default? The one where you lose a lot of state seems like a far worse choice.

It warns you. And there are people who do browsing in a one-off fashion: Open many thing, then close everything and forget.

Unless they removed it recently, Firefox will also let you restore the last session. You may have to use the default startpage, though.

> but Mozilla certainly lost the PR war and to no fault but their own, because Firefox sure sucked for a long while.

The last part is true, it did suck for a while. But I can't say "no fault but their own". Even if they rocked, they would have taken a big hit: chrome was advertised for a long time, and at no cost, using solicitating prompts directly on the most consultated and trusted web page in the world.

The advantage of Firefox / Chrome in general is that if you develop habits / shortcuts you can use them in any OS. Safari only works on macOS and edge on Windows.

Both their plugin ecosystems are significantly less robust as well e.g if you want to use any popular tools e.g shodan, google data saver, edit this cookie, etc

I think it's more like a new generation of people started using Mac OS on which I heard Firefox suck. So being already in a walled garden environment they did not care about entering Google's.

Firefox was always good on other OS. And you got noscript there with full access to block everything Chrome does not want you to block.

FWIW, I use Firefox on High Sierra and I don't think it sucks at all.

About noscript:

Recently I was playing with it, in an attempt to curate which site is allowed to make connections to which domain but I discovered that I cannot do it on a per domain basis and every whitelisted entry was applied everywhere. Apparently that was something that could be configured at noscript's ABE panel which doesn't exist in the latest versions.

If you want per domain rules I would suggest trying umatrix instead.

uBlock Origin can also do that.

What I like in chrome is search shortcuts, example I start typing "thes" then press TAB, then I'm brought directly to https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hello (possibly with little configuration). I don't think Firefox has similar things, last time I checked we have to use bookmarks or something

In Firefox you can add a bookmark and set a keyword for that bookmark. If the URL of the bookmark contains "%s", it'll get replaced by everything you type in the URL bar after the keyword. For example I have a bookmark for Wikipedia with the keyword "wp". So when I type "wp Y Combinator" I end up on the Wikipedia page about Y Combinator.

I really enjoy this feature and even catch myself regularly trying to use it on other computers, which obviously don't have such keywords defined.

Yeah, but the indicator that you’re using such a bookmark when typing “wp Foo” in the address bar is really poor. When you use the OpenSearch search engine integration you can also set a keyword but it’s highlighted properly. Downside is that you need to enable the separate search bar to get the option to add a site’s OpenSearch provider when visiting it because the small looking glass gets a tiny plus you need to click.

I recently switched from chrome to Firefox but the search engine situation is something I’m not really happy about.

> Downside is that you need to enable the separate search bar to get the option to add a site’s OpenSearch provider when visiting it because the small looking glass gets a tiny plus you need to click.

Nope, you can just right-click the site's own search bar, which is how I've been doing it forever.

I think that adds it as a bookmark which is not the same thing as an OpenSearch provider because it doesn’t give you the blue highlight when searching with it.

Actually this is exactly what lorenzhs said, and it is my experience too. I know this because I spent half an hour trying to get a “blue search” for BBFC.

Yup that’s what I meant. The right click -> add as search engine creates a bookmark which doesn’t get the blue highlight when using it. That distinction just doesn’t make sense to me.

DuckDuckGo: `!w Y combinator` ?

Didn't know about this either. Awesome and helps alleviate a pain point... but a) how the hell would any normal user know to do this? And b) how long until it is yet another undocumented feature dropped by Firefox?

Thanks for mentioning this feature, I didn't know about it before. Really like it!

You could just set duckduckgo as your default search provider. Then you can use their bangs[1] to quickly search on specific sites. "!thes test" will find synonyms for you.

It works flawlessly in all browsers I use.

[1]: https://duckduckgo.com/bang

I switched to DDG for the privacy, and a general desire to ensure that competitors to Google survive. But I've found I use the "bang" commands all the time.

Typing "w! foo" beats "wikipedia foo" every time.

Firefox/Chrome: You can right-click any search field on any web you visit and add it as a search engine, with the keyword of your choosing. I've been using "w foo" to directly search on English Wikipedia. It's half the characters! :)

The advantage of Duck's bangs is that you don't have to install or configure anything beyond searching with DuckDuckGo. I've managed to guess the correct bang-abbreviation plenty of times (Urban Dictionary? ud, OpenStreetMap? osm, Hacker News? Guess!).

I've also had 'w foo' as a keyword for years and years, along with many others for varying lengths of time. So convenient.

As others have mentioned and I believe you were referring to, Firefox does let you create bookmarks with keywords to accomplish the same thing.

Funnily enough, I've often seen Firefox users unaware that they can do the same with custom search keywords in Chrome, so the problem runs both ways.

As someone who uses these features in both Firefox and Chrome, I do think it would be nice if Firefox copied how Chrome automatically adds these search actions, and perhaps a bit of the UI polish too (like how Chrome's omnibox will recognize you're performing a keyword search and adapt accordingly). It doesn't make much of a difference for existing power users, but it could help new users discover and use the feature.

Firefox now highlights the search keyword and limits history matches to just that site.

Seriously? You would sell your soul to the devil to save typing four extra characters?

If you think using Chrome is selling your soul to the devil I wonder what you think about me who is fully integrated in the Google ecosystem with Google Home and everything.

At least in that case I can see what you might think you're getting out of the deal. But typing "thes" instead of "thesaurus"? Seriously?

In Firefox it requires a space instead of a tab. I search wikipedia and google like "w foo" and "g bar" respectively.

To add to the comments that show you how to configure something similar yourself, Firefox recently started including search shortcuts by default. This means you can now type `@google <query>` in a recent Firefox installation to search Google. More info here: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/10/17/searching...

It's still not as smooth and doesn't support as many OpenSearch providers as Chrome's, but might already help a bit.

Firefox has almost the exact same thing. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-search-from-address...

As someone who switched from Chrome to Firefox not that long ago this is the only feature I miss. Searching e.g. YouTube involves typing the query and then using the mouse to click the YouTube icon in the address bar dropdown. It's not nearly as effortless.

Set the default search engine to DuckDuckGo, and just type !yt query in the address bar. No mouse necessary.

Yeah this is the worst in firefox. I'm desperately trying to stick to firefox out of principle, but Chrome is just sooo much more comfy beacuse of like 3 features.

Firefox actually has 2 domain specific search-shortcut features, but both take time to set up and then is not intuitive at all. Chrome just blows it out of the water.

Also wtf - if I type "hello" and press enter in the search bar in FF, it puts a "www." in front and ".com" at the end.. like holy hell, if I knew the domain I'll write .com myself, it really is no problem. I even went ahead and googled for 15 minutes and disabled this in some deep settings somewhere, but it still does it when I press enter too fast... damnit, it frustrates me every single day.

I hope they see this and fix this very-frustratingly-obvious anti-UX behaviour..

Typing a word or words that don't look like a url or file has so far as I can recall always searched the default search engine for the word or query. This so far as I can recall has always been the case. Can you replicate this in a fresh profile to ensure this isn't just something you have set?

I run into the same thing somewhat frequently. it's the only real issue that I have with firefox. it's definitely not related to the profile, and it only seems to happen with fast enough input+enter.

it's really jarring to be sent to a random domain when looking up something in a hurry.

Do you use Safari for private browsing because each private window is sandboxed between each other unlike Chrome?

I find it intriguing that each incognito window in Chrome is not sandboxed between each other. Am I missing anything here?

I'd love to use Safari privately but uBlock Origin is a mess right now (lots of UI bugs) and won't work at all soon, so FF it is for me.

Firefox sucking wasn't their own fault? I would say it was. I would also say that their continued bloating of firefox and ancilliary projects/services shows that they still haven't return to their original mission.

Yes, that’s why I said it was to no fault but their own.

I like firefox, and use it a lot at work as generally my main browser with DDG as the , but I end up going back to chrome quite a bit

Things that bug me - For some reason often when I have quite a few tabs, open link in new tab stops working, the tab appears then disappears instantly, oddly if I use Vimium to open the tab in a new link it works. Mostly I use Vimium so this is not too much of a problem

- Copy pasting of formatted html is worse than Chrome.

- Confluence runs like a pig on Firefox for some reason, completely unusable on some pages, not strictly a FF problem, but is problematic.

- Just something about the aesthetics that is somehow "off"

On the positive

- I like the developer tools

- "Column select" out of the box just works

- scrolling tab bar instead of teeny tiny tabs where you can't see anything is good

- I feel better that I'm hopefully leaking less data, not that I can really verify that, but I generally believe I should be better protected than if I was using chrome

Overall, while there is cool things about FF, I feel I'm using it not because its the better browser, but some vauge idea I'm helping browser diversity.

Firefox Containers really do allow you to limit the amount that data leaks.


I have at least 30 tabs open at a time on some confluence page. None of them ever gave me any issues. So I think that's specific to you.

Don't forget the absolutely terrible translation add-ons on Firefox

This. And their dark theme is way better than any Chrome extension. The big deal is that Chrom(ium) has taken over the rapidly growing desktop webapp market with ElectronJS, and AFAIK there is no Electron competitor that uses the modern, Quantum FF stack.

Yup, not only that, but we must evangelize and install it every where. I installed it on every phone, tablet & computer in my house hold.

Sorry but the devtools can't even inspect my websocket API frames.

The websocket inspector was a feature request filed 6 years ago. [1]

Maybe Firefox devs didn't have time for it. But somehow they got all the time in the world to add clickbait Pocket articles on my new tab page.

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=885508

As well as the time to code in product placements https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15956325

Financially, Mozilla is currently entirely dependent on a search contract with Google, their mortal enemy.

They obviously see that this relationship is extremely risky, especially as Firefox becomes less popular and thus their userbase less valuable to Google. As such, they're trying to diversify their revenue stream.

Do you have any better solutions? Browsers are absurdly expensive to develop, by the way.

Become more popular by improving the product?

Firefox is improving by leaps and bounds every day.

But the market is not a meritocracy, as much as some people like to pretend it is. Success in the market is much more to do with things like marketing, momentum, inertia, and general opinions. All of these things are favoring Chrome right now, and Mozilla is not in a position to turn this around.

And you may not have noticed, but being popular doesn't actually give you money when your product is free and features no ads or tracking. All you are saying is that "google should give mozilla more money". How do you suggest they diversify their revenue stream?

I disagree. IMHO Chrome is a better browser than Firefox. A few examples from the top of my head why Firefox is worse than Chrome (on Linux):

1. Hardware acceleration is still disabled by default on Linux

2. Pocket

3. Unwanted notifications about wanting to update / being updated / having updated

3. Ugly spacing left and right of the adress bar

4. Takes longer to start

5. No integration with GNOME keychain.

6. Ctrl+Q quits the browser.

7. Laggy UI

> How do you suggest they diversify their revenue stream?

I would suggest that they don't need to diversify their revenue stream. As long as they are a major player, Google (or any other search engine) will continue to fund them.

3. Ugly spacing left and right of the adress bar

Those spacers are easily removed via customize mode.

Sure, you can also fix a lot of other annoyances. But those add up until the point where someone just installs Chrome in the first place where the defaults are sane.

Funded by? you?

All the money they shouldn't spend on Pocket for example.

Pocket is not a cost center, it earns them money to develop the browser in the first place!

I agree more option other chrome is a positive. Started to use duck duck go browser on mobile and so far so good.

Firefox has always been a resource hog and crash prone for me on just about any system. Although I use it primarily for some of its features and prefer it over chrome.

In my experience that's not the case since Quantum.

It's been a really long time I experienced any crash from Firefox. Last time I had instabilities, it was due to my profile. Deleting it solved the issues.

DevTools are lacking and they broke a ton of add ons with the API update (with no simple way to side load.) I can't use it. I tried again about five months ago and, one two machines, pages would stutter as I scrolled. Not worth my time to mess around with.

Would love to know your favorite add-ons that are broken and not available in AMO for FF57+ some of the contributors during their free time working on to bring extensions. can you share link or about the addon ( https://github.com/firefox-addons/ideas )

As one of the FF faithful, I almost quit when downthemall stopped working.


DTA is one of the reasons I’m still pissed at Mozilla to this day.

This addon used to be the only reason I opened Firefox.

Session managers no longer work reliably since the apis for reading and writing tab and window state are not exposed. This is the biggest one for me. Also vertical tabs addons have been fighting an uphill battle.

Classic Theme Restorer

i've been on firefox for the last six months or so. very happy overall.

More devs should support and use it, lest we be beholden to Chrome for the rest of time.

Why support what already broke your work once without an actual transition plan? They didn't have a full replacement ready to go when they got rid of XUL, and seemed that they didn't really care.

They announced web extensions in summer of 2015.


At the end of August of 2018 they stopped supporting 52 ESR which is the last extended support release that supports the old addons.

During the 3 years between a and b mozilla worked to provide support for flexible interesting addons which is why all the notable interesting addons I'm aware of have new versions.

I'm sure that the will to port every useful addon in existence just isn't there but it seems challenging for firefox to move forward without ditching the old addons.

Did you realize the new addon system was released over 3 years ago? It kind of seems as if perhaps as a user you were only peripherally aware of matters and derived an erroneous interpretation of events.

I'm pretty sure he meant web devs, not plugin devs.

Anyone who ignores prior treatment of folks is foolish.

Why would a web developer support one browser over others? They keep everyone honest by sticking to the middle road and not having a badge like "Works Best In FireFox".

And yet there’s scores of websites that barely work on anything except Chrome because it’s obvious that’s what the devs are using.

Well, it would help if they would resolve the serious quality issues. I wrote a webpage the other day, fully standards compliant (at least as I read it), and Firefox got it completely wrong (one of the bugs, three days old and not triaged[0]) in a way Ed.

I still have open bugs in Firefox from 2012. Firefox is riddled with layout and scripting bugs. I don't understand how they can afford all of this experimental development and "outreach" stuff, when the core product is basically just accumulating bugs which they will never address. Their tracker is full of untriaged bugs from as far back as a decade.

[0]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1511514

Do you not work around the way chrome does things in any way shape or form?

It is virtually never required. Even Chrome's interpretation of undefined behaviours is convenient (i.e. margin: auto on elements with only a max-height; this doesn't work in EdgeHTML or Gecko)

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