I think the response is appropriate, energetic advocacy, but the HN headline is hyperbolic.
The title isn't at all hyperbolic. You don't deprecate such important functionality without laying out a full plan for replacement.
Unless there is no such plan and in reality you want to screw uBlock Origin, which I might say is the most aggressive ad blocker available, and isn't owned by a company in bed with the ads industry, like AdBlock Plus.
It still allows extensions to get a list of URL's accessed
Moreover, this presumably didn't affect users who installed via a package manager, while with Chrome the installation method doesn't matter.
However I wish Mozilla was publicly funded, so that they don't have to constantly search for alternative revenue sources.
The fact that the plan ends with extensions still able to see all web requests, record all web requests, forward a log of all web requests to any arbitrary endpoint, etc...means the "privacy" angle is pure bullshit. I suppose the "performance" angle is somewhat true, but the net performance gain of NOT downloading all the ads makes up for any performance loss of processing/filtering requests. Sites with ads are faster when you load an adblocker.
The only thing being taken away is the ability to dynamically observe a web request and cancel it. Who uses that functionality outside of ad-blockers? Not many. There's no hyperbole in the headline.
If it ends up as effective as Safari/iOS's content blocking, I don't see the problem.
> The fact that the plan ends with extensions still able to see all web requests, record all web requests, forward a log of all web requests to any arbitrary endpoint, etc...means the "privacy" angle is pure bullshit.
Yes, if you grant permission to access everything, it has permission to access everything. The benefit of the rule based approach is that the extension doesn't have to have access to everything.
The privacy angle is being able to move most extensions away from accessing all data in all tabs.
Edit: I assume "right click -> hide and don't ever load again" becomes "right click -> load but hide" ? Also, related: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/337094/safari-12-c...
The Safari content blocker is better than nothing, but it's extremely simplistic compared to uBlock Origin. It can't even block YouTube ads properly.
To get around the 50k limit added by Apple, you must use multiple lists, however domain exceptions must be included in the same subset as the parent rules, since rules do not combine once compiled.
Also, dynamically whitelisting a domain is annoying since you must remove all of the lists form the webview before loading the page. HTTPS-Everywhere is even worse to get operational using Apple's content blocking lists.
(edited grammar mistakes)
"Extensions act on behalf of users, they add capabilities to a user agent, and deprecating the blocking ability of the webRequest API will essentially decrease the level of user agency in Chromium, to the benefit of web sites which obviously would be happy to have the last word in what resources their pages can fetch/execute/render."
>Extensions act on behalf of users, they add capabilities to a user agent, and deprecating the blocking ability of the webRequest API will essentially decrease the level of user agency in Chromium
This is off-topic, but I felt the same way about most data privacy problems. It was my own browser that was giving out the information and I would still like to see better control over it by default. Data privacy laws are simply a bandaid that don't help at all against malicious actors.
I already leave websites that become unusable with adblock on, or without it on. It will just trim down on the amount of sites I go on.
If it's something I'm particularly interested in, I look for a cache, snapshot or whatever.
Edit: Or just read HN comments.
All sites which are on Google Amp. Google, whenever it can, "helpfully" gives me the amp site and then I have to find and click the link to the actual site to get to the "readable" version.
In other words, if your "solution" to the problem as outlined in the OP involves google, you already lost.
My money is on news sites and other paywall sites doing that first. How long before they stop letting us "open in new private window"? Washington Post doesn't even allow that anymore -- a shame too, since I haven't read a single one of their articles since then.
That said, we should all fight for changes that let extensions like uBlock maintain feature parity.
Disclaimer: I'm both a Chromium developer and a uBlock Origin user and speak only for myself.
If they have something working with one API, they have to have a good reason to re-implement it with a new API. It may be 'fast enough' and reliable, so why go through all that pain?
Or, it's just the long tail of API consumers (e.g. site on the web). Some things aren't maintained and updated, but they don't go away.
Once the browser reaches its natural Borg-self, transparent user-level tools will be all that provide a semblance of control. Well that, and Firefox.
Blocking at the network layer will leave the iframe blank, but the modal will still be present. It's not such a good user experience, especially for less savvy users who might be confused by a mysterious blank modal.
On the other hand Chromium is relatively simple to adapt with many real world examples to learn from.
(Personally I think they should stick with EdgeHtml but it seems that ship has sailed).
However, this does provide an opening for MS edge, if MS forks Chromium for Edge and excludes user hostile “features” such as this.
There is a quite a bit of adware which uses unsigned Chromium to push their wares.
That is the malware installs a modified Chromium with all the "extras".
So anecdotally, when I see Chromium on a users computer I assume the worst (that I have a cleanup task ahead).
On the flip side Chrome's profiles are nice and I wish macOS supported more of it.
The design document says "potentially removing blocking options from most events". There is one mention that the blocking ability of webRequest.onAuthRequired may still be required.
From this I deduce that the plan is to remove the blocking ability of the three remaining listeners with blocking ability
uBlock Origin uses two of these remaining blocking listeners, uMatrix uses three of them.
This is because Chrome extensions can use the 'debugger' API to send remote debugging protocol commands to a page, to intercept and filter / block all requests.
There is no need to use the provided Chrome extension APIs for blocking. Google can remove all of them, I think, without effect.
This is because there are multiple ways to do the same thing. Authors/engineers complaining that now they are impeded, are in fact mistaken.
Disclosure: I know this because I have actually re-implemented the blocking from AdBlock Fast using CRDP Network domain.
I'm interested in that even tho this is factually correct, it's ignored / downvoted because it goes against the prevailing narrative. Discourse here can be pretty 1 dimensional, it's more like a confirmation bias machine / echo chamber, than a discussion. Just like the rest of the net, no matter how 'smart' the people here are. The same behavior pattern occurs here as everywhere else.
It would be interesting if this can be solved in discussion forums of the future.
I did find it, it's called setRequestInterception(). It's marked as experimental, and has a note that it disables caching, but there's some debate as to whether it actually does.
I'm glad that I stopped using it.
Many web commentators continually sound the alarm on Google's increasing leverage and control over a variety of "components" or "intrastructure" essential to the www.
But controlling the browser is, I think, the ultimate control over the web as users know it. Browsers seem to fall outside the purview of www standards. Are there RFCs that tell people what browsers must or should do? More likely, there are standards that focus on servers and seek to accomodate whatever browsers are doing at the time.
The browser can override anything. It can easily modify user intent in subtle, "hidden" ways. It can rewrite "default behaviour" overnight.
To give an example, users probably think little of something like the feature known as "Omnibox", if they even know what that is, but this sort of browser "feature" is of enormous value to a company trying to gather information on what users are looking for.
Imagine the number of DNS queries this bypasses, redirecting what is typed by the user to a default search engine, conveniently preset to point to a Google server.
IE was stagnating, slow, and extremely vulnerable to malicious behaviors. The net result was that the web became a very hostile place, while Microsoft was pitching various "post web" strategies like WPF. Google had been a big financial supporter of Firefox but not to a degree where they could direct the project or push their own agenda. At the time many viewed Firefox as slow and bloated.
The web was less dangerous. Google's cash cow was protected because there was less of a draw to go to alternative platforms.
That, I think, was their primary intention and it was aligned interests with users. Everyone is happy with the web.
And honestly I do think this ad blocking thing is a bit of "fake news" (e.g. it is being grossly misreported). Google is proposing a solution that offers more privacy from the extension, and it seems very similar to what Safari has done (and which is very widely viewed as a great design).
It would only provide more privacy if ad block extensions go solely with static lists of uris. If they want to retain features like right-click block, or allowing users to customize the list, static blocks don't work.
These changes do nothing to inhibit the ability to log/store/etc requests anywhere you want as an extension author. They are only removing the ability to cancel in flight requests.
What's your source that the Safari ad blocking approach is viewed as a great design? Everything I look at shows it was a regression in effectiveness. Certainly the various adblock authors weren't thrilled. How well, for example, does it work with YouTube ads?
Chrome was originally based on WebKit and many other open source libraries, and some parts still are. The only major initial investment was V8.
And that was 6 years ago.
Yea, I know... so they really have something to hide, right? So why not to start caring about the privacy and start thinking?
Not one of them, but I hope you realize that this 'example' is completely off mark.
I have nothing to hide if we are talking about that new hifi system I was looking on Amazon, I don't care if google knows what did I have for breakfast, I might even be ok with you knowing my address, but this is fundamentally different from you haveing keys from my apartment or my bank account.
Their argument is that the reason why people say house keys, or bank act # is different is because they are protecting something of value. His argument is what you do on a daily basis is just as valuable you just don't know it yet.
The other argument against is "yes my privacy/ daily activity may have 'value', but unlike my bank account or house keys people can't take something from me from knowing it. "
That's more up to opinion, but the argument is knowing you so well, someone can take your independence. A bit dystopian, but imagine n years from now, ML is good enough to predict your responses and behaviors to 80+% of things. Companies now use it to effectively get you to make decisions they want. Combinations of timing, placement, location, repetition, persuasion, counter-argument all to produce a desired result, but unlike present day extremely effective and possibly without your awareness. If there is a way to get our wet ware to do it, ML will figure it out.
Advertising/Marketing/Sales become a game of Go, where you're the Go board. Best ML wins.
We like to think we're fully in control of our decision making facilities, but study after study shows that's mostly an illusion. Our sub-conscience mostly decides for us, and then our brains rationalize this away after the fact.
The fear is that by giving away your emotions, your responses, your ocean 5 factor model, your preferences, your habits, and a playground to test all of this in you are potentially giving up your independence at a future time.
It's all dystopian, it's not guaranteed, but it pans out as all likely directions and very probable tech.
If the AI knows me so well, it's probably something I would buy/want anyway. If my house starts cooking bacon and eggs in the morning based on it's analysis of me, and there's a 90% chance that's what I want, awesome.
A lot of people already do it with driving. On my commute to work every day, I go the way google maps tells me to. Google is effectively controlling traffic patterns, but it's made driving to work faster.
I realize it could possibly be used for evil, but by the time we get there, most if not all, of the people reading this will be dead by that point, so we'll never know.
To some degree, this has already been happening for decades, since psychologists began formalising advertising into a science. Look at the increasing percentage of lower class families and how diminished their average value is. This isn't caused by time localized events, like a 5 year recession or a housing market bubble. This is the result of extremely fine-tuned and effective advertising, that has caused cultural shifts towards greater and more irrational consumerism.
ML allows the advertisers to be much much more effective; they no longer even have to manually understand their market to manipulate it. Again, look at the growing disparity between the richest 1% and the rest of the schmucks. That 1% is soaking up the profits of extremely effective advertising, which the rest of us are paying for.
To give an example, imagine if Google Maps took you on an alternative route, not because you'd arrive faster, but because on that route there are ads you need to watch, or because GMaps wants to free the road for some high profile travelers and you're just getting in the way.
Waze is already serving commercials while you're driving. And given the weird routes it has taken me on, I now have no idea if Waze's algorithm chooses certain routes because it would be faster, or because it wants me to watch ads, or because it wants to take me off the main road to clear it for others.
Companies are already doing evil shit with real consequences. Facebook for example did experiments on manipulating people's feelings. Target figured out a girl is pregnant before her father. Plenty of other examples. It's just that people aren't paying attention.
There are comparable issues with Google and Facebook. Let economic instruments fix the problems. Tax advertisement. Heavily if necessary.
If I want to drink a Whisky there is a lot of tax (to 'help with my thinking'..;). The same needs to be done with advertisement, imho.
I feel a lot less concerned about this than who knows what google is doing.
"Cliqz does not build browsing profiles for individual users and discards the user's IP address once the data is collected," the firm added."
"Consequently, aggregation of user's data in the server-side (on Cliqz premises) is not technically feasible, as we have no means to know who is the original owner of the data," Cliqz says. "This is a strong departure from the industry standard of data collection."
And here's Mozillas info about it:
Why should I be concerned? Given this information, why would I choose Chrome over Firefox for my privacy?
How can you be so sure about that?
Even if it doesn't sell your data, it can use your data to make their ads more efficient for you and people similar to you. While that's their business model, they are borderline abusing you in the process. This not something I'm comfortable with.
Correct. They sell it for money. How exactly is that better at keeping your private data private? Google's power doesn't reside in the fact that it keeps your data private but in the fact that they have a constant flow of up to date data. When you hand over data to a company whose revenue (also) officially comes from monetizing it your privacy is forfeited.
Common sense would lead anyone to assume they don't collect it just to flip bits on a storage device. Just when you thought you knew the devil. Knowing this guess you'll drop Chrome now, right?
So tell me about this devil you know and how exactly knowing all that still pushes you to believe it's the better option?
 i can go on but I'm pretty sure a modicum of good will from your side would be enough to get the point.
Ok... I'd read it for you but that's not how it works. So here it is in nuggets:
> "Both Android and Chrome send data to Google even in the absence of any user interaction," the study finds. "Our experiments show that a dormant, stationary Android phone (with Chrome active in the background) communicated location information to Google 340 times during a 24-hour period, or at an average of 14 data communications per hour."
> So yes, fuck Mozilla, they can burn.
Ah, ok, I was waiting for you to change the narrative from "Mozilla bad, Google good" to "I have no argument, I just don't like Mozilla".
And don't get me wrong, you have every right to like whatever you want. Just don't pretend you have valid objective arguments.
I have 0 interest in telling you what you should like or use, or pretending that Mozilla always plays fair. I just felt compelled to point out that the justification you presented here is horse manure. You use Chrome because you want to. Don't try to sell it as an objective conclusion even if it's written in the same sentence as a related objective argument. One is not based on the other.
Objectively both Mozilla and Google resort to trickery, only the scale is vastly different for the company that lives on monetizing your privacy. And mind you, I use Chrome 90% of the time. But I'm not fooling myself with explanations like "Google will protect my privacy" and "the devil I know must be good".
Here's a short list of other horse manure conclusions that can be extraneously drawn from accurate and objective arguments:
-I drive a VW car because GM was once caught cheating on emission tests
-I use an Intel CPUs because AMD CPUs once had a bug
-I use Windows because Linux had a vulnerability once
-I use Chrome because Mozilla once gave/sold my private data to some 3rd party
ugh.. why mozilla, why??
I don’t think that means what you think it means.
Which browser are you using?
I think some people who care about privacy have just been worn down to the point where they've given up and don't necessarily believe they gain much from the inconvenience of avoiding things that work for them. I'm not sure that's totally irrational.
Once upon a time, you could tweak your HOSTS file and/or install some basic software, and adopt a few behaviors to get reasonably strong privacy.
Now, between all of the data breaches, tracking at the device/ISP/carrier level, nefarious privacy policies (including IRL), business models that depend on collecting, selling, and protecting data, app glut, sophisticated malware and fraud, etc. ad nauseum: it's like a multi-front war to keep your PII. Truth be told, most of us have shockingly less knowledge than we think WRT how much of our data is "out there" and who has access to it.
Through this lens, it's understandable that some might care but think it doesn't make a tremendous difference whether they use Chrome or some other thing.
Not to say it's hopeless, but at some point certain "precautions" inconvenience us more than they provide any marked improvement in our overall privacy. I'm not even sure which browser to trust more than Chrome anymore. So, I use Chrome for its features, active maintenance, and standards compatibility.
EDIT: I'd be curious to know what others are using.
Profiles went from optional, to on-by-default but could be disabled via chrome://flags, to on-by-default but could be disabled via command line arg, to cannot be disabled, to logged in by default but not syncing. Where this progression is going and what it's trying to promote is not rocket science.
Chrome used to be very lightweight, fast and basically unseated IE as the top browser. It got that love because at the time Firefox was bloated and IE had a stranglehold. Chrome was also safer with a process per tab. Chrome made web browsing/dev pleasant like Firefox/Firebug did and it really took off being based on Webkit like Safari which also worked well on mobile. Chrome (and Safari) or Webkit pushed HTML5/Canvas/WebGL/SVG into real world use which changed the landscape of browsers.
Nowadays Chrome is bloated like Firefox was, has a stranglehold like IE did, is now pushing its own market standards and breaking existing open/market standards and generally being a forceful, non respecting to standards, web browser. It sure is unfortunate and another sign that bizdev/marketing/executives rule over engineers at Google now.
Firefox was top dog when chrome came out - it had unseated IE already for many users fed up with XP-era crapware.
Chrome then came in, borrowed another project's browser engine, and decided to say 'screw memory, just fork processes' and avoided the whole multithreaded thing all together, oh yes, and open blank tabs faster with a little animation for perceptions sake.
of course I'm biased here (as is parent) - but chrome unseating firefox which unseated IE is born out by the facts.
Maybe in mindshare for devs but Chrome officially unseated IE browser saturation in 2012. Firefox didn't pass IE until 2015 .
Firefox was amazing on its resurgence in mid-2000s but did get into memory/bloat stages that opened it up for minimal/performant Chrome that was also more secure at the time primarily due to the process per tab. This possibly did lead to more js bloat later, initially it was lightning fast and also had a debug console and was based on Webkit which was better than Firefox rendering.
Firefox definitely saw Web 2.0 come in from 2006 on and was revolutionary in web development/debugging with Firebug and eventually that was part of the browser and is now industry standard to have a console/debugger on the browser.
Most developers were using Firefox by 2005-2006 and then Chrome a couple/few years later and it has been top for almost a decade now.
This is the big one for me. When I'm not developing I actually prefer to use Safari-- I like it's interface better and it feels more at home in macOS. It's "good enough" too.
What I'm really a user of is the Chrome Dev Tools. Firefox's are looking quite solid lately but I just haven't switched over.
Firefox highlights the edge lines of the selected element automatically, and in all directions (if I recall correctly). I have to use an extension – VisBug – to achieve that in Chrome.
There's also the fonts window, which lets you in on what fonts are used on the page, and lets you modify the selected element's font settings – size, weight, slant/italic etc.. I pay a lot of attention to typography, so that part is important to me.
Also that it's not Chrome or based on Chromium is reason alone to like Firefox, because we need diversity for healthy web standards. That Chromium is open source is a red herring and open standards are more important.
I know developers have been preferring Chrome and for good reasons, but I've switched back to Firefox for the last 3 years and personally I find it hard to use Chrome these days, because Firefox has a better UI.
The only downside is that Chrome's dev tools still has some capabilities that Firefox lacks, but Firefox has been improving a lot, as you have seen.
2. There's a general passive-combative conversation about browsers going on ("I like Firefox, I don't get why people like Chrome" and vice versa) that I never wanted to be a part of, mostly because of how disrespectful and counterproductive it is.
3. In a thread about ad-blocking, I got what is effectively an ad for Firefox.
I don't want any of this nonsense on my side of the table. "Use my product because I value it!" No, go away, I don't need this.
My choices are rarely uninformed. I spend time considering what to pick where I'm able to. I'd like my choices to be respected as such – not have my face plastered with someone else's unprompted opinion.
Here's an example of a better conversation:
– I liked this part of Firefox, and I wish it was in Chrome too.
– Do you not like Firefox whole, then? If so, why?
– Because of X, Y, and Z. I used it intensely for a month or so, so I got a good look at the way it behaves. I know X is solvable, but not Y or Z (I tried), and they're critical to my browsing experience.
– Okay, I see. I hope you consider (browser diversity, or whatever issues using Firefox's supposed to solve), because they're important.
– Oh yeah? Can you tell me why?
...and so on. A respectful conversation that sparks curiosity and provides context, without annoying any of the parties in the process.
Otherwise, you get what you give. Seems a fair approach to me.
You'd like your choices to be respected, but you are incapable of offering civility. Is that also a choice we should respect, or is it beyond your control?
"My name is Bond. James Bond."
And didn't get to this spot on any kind of technical or feature merits, but essentially by relentless nagging on the Google search page to have users install it. Sure, devs/geeks etc were eager early adopters, but the bulk of users were steered this way by Google.
Microsoft have been stalling IE development for years, which allowed Mozilla to gain huge marketshare. This resulted in a lot of people learning, how to install a third party web browser. By the time Chrome was unveiled, Mozilla have coincidentally slowed Firefox development to a crawl. I remember the point, when the stable Firefox version was close to unusable, while everyone technologically proficient used a development release. It have been so bad, that some addons simply recommended not using the stable Firefox version. Btw, things have only gotten worse since then.
Chrome's dazzling success is result of it's aggressive advertising as well as sabotage and mismanagement, that killed off alternatives.
At the end of the day, this is the end-all-be-all argument to the Facebook and Google duopoly. People just don't give a goddamn (excuse the language) about their data - they simply do.not.care.
I believe my generation (Y), and possibly a few after us (X, etc), will be known as the generation(s) who didn't think privacy/data was that big of a deal - until one day it was.
We are the guinea pig.
This wasn't meant to be a plug, just a happenstance of "if you like 'x', have you seen 'y' based on it?". =]
 - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...
Sadly, Mozilla also seem to promote containers as an alternative to user profiles, while they're nowhere near as full-featured - sharing saved logins and bookmarks between my "personal" and "work" containers is almost never desireable. Managing and switching profiles, on the other hand, is virtually unchanged since the Netscape Communicator days.
Firefox has mostly strived, in the Quantum era, to stay mostly-ish compatible with Google's interpretation of WebExtensions, from what I can tell.
I'm at the point of installing chromium just to be able to manage my videos, but I refuse to give in.
My main browser is Firefox, but I have to switch over to Chrome more often than I would like. Electron is also based on Chromium, isn't it? IMHO, the rise of Electron just reinforces Chromium's status and I think Microsoft is going to accelerate that trend (I'm guessing MS adopted Chromium because of Electron).
Other web developers may want to chime in but I rarely have cross-browser problems between Firefox and Chrome. I can't recall the last one.
The only time I encounter a problem with Firefox is looking at people's codepens where they're using webkit only prefixes or a draft API.
I do use Gmail, and don't have any but have long planned to move to Outlook.com.. perhaps knowing about this ShadowDOM issue will spur me on to make the move.
Google only has one product that's truly best-of-breed (Maps) and I don't mind using it, but don't want to be entirely in any one vendor's ecosystem. I would say Youtube is the best of its kind, but it's really held up by its community, not functionality as Maps is. Outlook may not be the absolute best for privacy either (it's also no-charge), but it at least gets me to a place where I'm well diversified.
Google Maps, Youtube, InoReader, Outlook, DuckDuckGo all on Firefox with containers is a good enough of a spread for me.
If one cannot avoid it, I think it's a better idea to create Chrome desktop shortcuts for Gmail/YouTube and use Chrome exclusively for that, if you cannot use a desktop email client for Gmail and VLC/mpv/youtube-dl for some reason.
Moreover, once you give in on this, what's Google going to do next? Use APIs only in Chrome that Mozilla needs to implement only after they're made public in Chrome by literally looking at the source code? There's always going to be a lag if that's the dynamic, so there's always going to be the perception that Firefox is behind.
Moreover if Firefox adopts it, it makes it more likely to be adopted by Apple too, since Google's now not the only kid on the block to support it and now you turned it into a de-facto standard.
Mozilla already partially caved to Google in pursuit of the "best browser" as perceived by the average user. That was on DRM. Now I say partially because at least they made it opt-in, but so they caved and next Google came up with this thing.
If you going to keep paying ransom, you're going to have a lot of hostages.
+1. I'm hopeful of Servo. So far it (ServoShell) also a good 50MB smaller than Electron which would be a very good reason for developers to switch. It'll all depend on API compatibility at the time of release I guess.
In Firefox, macOS was showing 4+GB of memory usage and formulas would take hours to run. I switched to Safari where memory usage was closer to 1-2GB, but it had this habit of refreshing the page as soon as you switched away (before a formula would finish running). I finally switched to Chrome and memory usage was about 1-2GB and heavy formulas behaved in a way more predictable manner.
Using both for years, Chrome has just been faster and more reliable. I don't do web dev professionally, but I use multiple browsers in tandem and often try to use one full time every once in awhile. On my old laptop, I'm pretty sure Chrome was the only one to support webGL for whatever reason. At work we're stuck with Firefox 38.3.0 ESR (Cent6/7) and Prometheus Alert Manager (and I also believe Prometheus graphing interface) has broken widgets, but Chrome works. Chrome has always seemed to better support the very few websites that require crazy performance. This was even the case when we would have an ancient version of Chrome and a new version of Firefox. It sucked when Firefox switched plugin architecture and Google Hangouts never added support. Now Google Meet does not support Safari.
I'm not saying any of these comparisons are "fair" but its what I deal with day-to-day.
Kind of, only because Google uses the ShadowDOM API to break its product on competing browsers and playing into it will only reinforce this behavior.
Today I'm browsing the Adidas website, and the images don't load for any of the products in Firefox.
Apparently they're WEBP images and my version of Firefox (version 64) doesn't support them, but searching online I read that the upcoming Firefox version 65 is suppose to fix that issue.
Strangely enough, the images were working fine a few weeks ago on the Adidas website, but I had a different Firefox issue. When I clicked the images to see the fullscreen view and zoomed in, they wouldn't pan or drag correctly, so 80% of the image was hidden off the screen. In Chrome, they worked as expected.
That's one example, but as I said, I get these kind of issues almost daily from companies that should know better. I still primarily use Firefox because I have no trust in Google, but I'm forced to open Chrome on a regular basis to resolve random quirks.
I loaded the page with Firefox 65 beta and all the images worked for me. The site doesn't seem to be serving WebP images to Firefox. When I checked all the image types via Page Info they were mostly JPEGs with some PNGs and one SVG image.
There's probably some other reason why the site is broken for you. Have you perhaps changed your browser's user agent string and so the site is giving you WebP images because it thinks they will work?
So, I'm left scratching my head and using Chrome to browse the site.
As someone who always has too many tabs open, I consider this a plus.
I do however think you can disable this in about:config : browser.sessionstore.restore_on_demand
For what it's worth, Chrome stopped doing this for me in a recent update (I think version 71).
You can also disable smooth scrolling only for the touchpad in about:config to keep the animation for scrolling with the keyboard. Search for "smooth"; I think it's the mouseWheel one, but I'm not at home to verify.
Disclaimer: I contribute to Firefox and enjoy it quite a bit.
On Ubuntu and Kali (both debian-based), it most certainly does.
I tried using Firefox for Linux for about 6 months last year, but had to give up. I got frustrated with the random UI pauses/latency, random crashes, and broken web rendering (not its fault). On the other hand, Chrome just works, and provides a very smooth, low latency experience on Linux. I don't like that I have to give up my privacy for a decent browsing experience on Linux, but that's the state of things.
I am honestly perplexed what the issue could be then, I was sure you were using an NVidia with the proprietary drivers or something like that, as such setups have caused me trouble in the past.
The only thing is I wouldn't recommend turning on WebRender for everything yet, but it's not on by default so I doubt you had it on.
Guys who maintain Firefox - thank you. I hope I'll join the FF users once more in the near future.
I assume that Chrome has a similar design, but I'm not familiar with it.
Check their dev blog, they add cool features every couple of weeks:
> I've got nothing to hide.
However, if this data ever gets into the hands of someone acting in bad faith, even the most innocent behaviour can be weaponized against you. Let's say, for example, that you are wrongly suspected of committing a crime, and the investigating police are more interested in cooking up a conviction than determining if you actually did it.
All sorts of details about your life can be leaked and "spun" to make you look very, very bad. You went to a bar on a certain evening? So did these known crime figures. Were you meeting them?
You spend time on Hacker News. HACKER NEWS. You could find yourself the target of a smear campaign designed to turn public sentiment against you.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."—Cardinal Richelieu
If you hand over your data without hesitation to a nation-state or to powerful and unscrupulous corporations, I believe you will discover that there is no such thing as "nothing to hide."
Someone could be alarmed about the state of privacy in society and not want to take an extreme action.
It seems entirely reasonable to want to remain a part of civilization and advocate for change on a topic you are passionate about.
If you are ok with that and still think you have nothing to hide, ask yourself if you’d be ok with this trove of data ever being exposed publicly.
Ever googled something embarrassing? Perhaps a medical condition or symptom?
Sent a very personal email?
Visited a less than savory location, or lied to an employer about your whereabouts?
I’d be willing to bet most people have some data that could be weaponized for blackmail.
Surely many people (especially the ignorant) will find Google’s products and services “worth using” but privacy concerns are anything but overblown.
I already did, and the answer was "Yes, I'd be okay" (although the likelihood of that happening is extremely rare).
> Ever googled something embarrassing?
Use incognito mode.
> Perhaps a medical condition or symptom?
I have only one medical condition, which I'm not embarassed to talk about publicly (I already do it).
> Sent a very personal email?
I rarely send "very personal"/ intimate information over email in lieu of just talking over phone.
> Visited a less than savory location,
Never in my life.
> or lied to an employer about your whereabouts?
I never had to do it (why would I?).
> I’d be willing to bet most people have some data that could be weaponized for blackmail.
If--note "if"--I were to engage in an activity that could potentially be used to blackmail or harm me in any way, I would of course be doing it in as private manner as possible. However it would be silly to spend the rest of my normal life cowering and being phobic to technological advances.
> Surely many people (especially the ignorant) will find Google’s products and services “worth using” but privacy concerns are anything but overblown.
You confuse being naive (in its original sense of the word) with being ignorant. But I guess that's what fear does to one.
All this means is that it's not stored on your computer/history. This doesn't mean Google doesn't still have everything from those periods.
Google also operates some of the most popular DNS services 220.127.116.11,18.104.22.168 which can capture domains you query from your IP.
There are various measures you can go through to stop this to some degree, like DNS blocking, client-side ad/tracker blocking, VPNs etc. but to go all-out is very cumbersome and I'm not convinced that it would even be 100% effective. Google's business DEPENDS on collecting your data and tracking you, and they are very, very good at it. I highly recommend reading "The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism".
This is a flawed study by a Google's competitor (the for-profit organization called DuckDuckGo). FTA:
> Following the study’s publication this morning, Google told The Verge in a statement that it found the methodology flawed and the findings misleading. “This study’s methodology and conclusions are flawed since they are based on the assumption that any difference in search results are based on personalization. That is simply not true,” a Google spokesperson said. “In fact, there are a number of factors that can lead to slight differences, including time and location, which this study doesn’t appear to have controlled for effectively.”
Facts won't change being facts no matter how many times you downvote them. :-P
For a lot of people they possibly hold that view due to a lack of understanding about the situation, but some people like you understand the situation and still are OK with it. That's an entirely reasonable point of view which should be eagerly debated with.
People are notoriously bad at acting in their own best interest. I recall reading a forum, where a guy asked for medical advice, because he was diagnosed with fibrosis (his lungs basically got scarred all over). His work required him to continuously inhale toxic exhaust, and he wanted a way to avoid further health complications (but keep a work!) because "the pay was good".
Fibrosis causes you to cough non-stop and significantly increases probability of dying from lung infection. Compared to that, using Google's products does not result in any visible long-term effects on health. Therefore, it is natural to conclude, that using Google's sites and services is safe, healthy and should be widely encouraged. It does not matter, that Google uses anti-competitive practices to monopolize market, restrict user freedom and lead us to future, when we won't be able to refuse shoehorned "services", shoved in our face, right?
Please stop with those creepy "understanding" antics. Encouraging self-harm is bad, and wishing to view advertisements is definitely a form of self-harm.
You are essentially deciding for me that what I choose to do with my technological choices is "a form of self-harm" (when in fact I only experience total pleasure).
Is it really that hard to comprehend that, when one does not share the alarmist feelings of the crowd, they will make intelligent choices based on personal preferences?
Don't mean to insult you, and some people just have an easier time opening up about everything, but a life with nothing whatsoever to hide sounds limited, uninventive and uninteresting.
> a life with nothing whatsoever to hide sounds limited, uninventive and uninteresting.
Ever familiar with the phrase "un unexamined life is not worth living"? Here, of course, the thing to be examined is your belief that a life with nothing whatsover to hide is limited, uninventive and uninteresting.
So if you don't mind would you share some nudes, your CC numbers and your medical history with us?
Why? In what ways is Chrome more useful than Firefox on Chrome OS?
Moreover I use Chrome to sync my Google account, including passwords (which I can't live without) and browsing history.
That's not your call to make.
It annoys me because I really want to use it. I'm very happy that we have it and I hope that the wider community will hold Mozilla to account every time they try something shady to protect the best free and open browser we have. If we lose Firefox, we lose the Internet to corporations.
It works well on windows, I don't know how far the mac support is.
WebRender does work on macOS (and Android and maybe Linux), but Mozilla is prioritizing a Windows MVP first (because something like 90% of Firefox users are on Windows). Work on macOS, Linux, and Android will then resume.
Yet how long will we have it if everyone keeps using excuses to continue using Chrome?
Firefox on Mac is noticeably slower.
How on Earth does "Comorbidities Associated with Plaque Psoriasis | Dermatology Times" on page 10 have a higher PageRank and relevance for the search query "uBlock Origin" than https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... ?
1. Chrome web store
3. Microsoft store
5. Mozilla addon, and finally
6. Gorhill's github for ublock origin.
Can we finally say that DDG is better for some searches than Google?
I think we're close. For some things, it's still not the best but instead of going to <insert another search engine here>, I try to modify my query to scope to what I'm looking for.
In a crude example, if I'm looking for the "LoadCrashDump" method,, which is specific to ClrMD, I can simply construct my query as "ClrMD: LoadCrashDump".
 - https://github.com/Microsoft/clrmd/blob/ac36603e37ef7c8ba05d...
Please everyone help the other options survive, even if you don't personally like them or use them. There is no way legislators are ever going to catch up on their technical knowledge enough to manage even the most blatant monopoly. Who am I kidding, they wouldn't care anyway. Somebody has to get in there to offer competition and keep things honest. Having options improves all of the options.
It's fairly likely that's just PR. They're a US headquartered place, so would have to comply with NSL's (etc) just like every other US company.
And banks and insurances for credit ratings. And for screening companies, that are contracted to evaluate your job application on basis of your purchases, locations and so on
Safari will survive since Apple is their patron. Obviously Internet Explorer is only a lumbering undead husk at this point, and it's pretty shameful that it's still outgunning Firefox by a small amount. Even more sad that it's got over twice as many users as Edge, lol.
I work for a website with around 1.2 billion annual pageviews. Mobile Safari is about 55%, Chrome (mobile & desktop) 35% and everything else gets the leftovers. Samsung browser is growing fast while IE, Edge, macOS Safari and Firefox are rounding errors.
Kindle browser does better than IE. It’s amazing how far and hard it's fallen.
If you include mobile browsers, Safari's market share is closer to 17%, which makes it the #2 most popular:
Power users won't stand for this sort of thing and will switch to Firefox. Firefox, in turn, will gain greater development mindshare.
In aggregate, these privacy and "ads above all" stories will continue to taint the Google brand. Many of my layperson friends are starting to worry about their privacy when using Google products--it's a good thing!
And I completely agree with you regarding ideological reasons to use FF. You don't have to be a zealot to value your privacy.
I recall this is what I had to do for Safari since there wasn’t a supported extension for the new browser yet.
This would lessen our dependency on a browser for ad blocking in this ongoing browser war.
It's better to just not let a browser that's user hostile enough to prevent ad blocking win a browser war.
I can throw facebook's servers into my hosts file, but what if I want to permit connections to facebook servers if and only if I am on facebook.com? uMatrix makes that trivial.
Let's hope I'm right. :)