Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Firefox 72.0 (mozilla.org)
758 points by Shinkirou 16 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 525 comments

Here's my Firefox wishlist:

- Open new windows more quickly. Firefox feels sluggish (on Mac) even though it isn't, simply because it opens new windows far more slowly than Safari or Chrome.

- Use the platform native key store. I don't want my passwords stored unencrypted on disk. But I don't want to enter a separate master password either. I do want to use fingerprint/face unlock on mobile to reveal passwords.

- Give me a setting to autoconfirm all cookie consent requests and lobby for a legally binding do-not-track header. Cookie consent was well meaning, but it has turned out to make things worse. Let's move on.

The window-opening animation might be a factor (applies across all of macOS).

You can disable it for all windows in all applications using a terminal command:

    defaults write NSGlobalDomain NSAutomaticWindowAnimationsEnabled -bool NO
You might need to restart apps to see this change.

Oh that's very nice. In iOS 7 we had a jailbreak tweak called NoSlowAnimations[0]. It was amazing how much a simple thing increased the perceived speed and responsiveness of the OS.

[0] http://cydia.saurik.com/package/com.marcosinghof.noslowanima...

You can completely disable animations in accessibility settings.

Do you mean "Reduce Motion" under Display?

Don't have an iphone handy but I think so. There are lots of options there to explore, there's also one to increase contrast and another to make buttons more evident. There's some cool stuff there in accessibility options

Ah, when "Mac" was mentioned I assume we were talking about MacOS, not iOS.

There is still a slow cross fade animation.

Brilliant! It works. Thank you so much!

So, an OS setting makes FF look bad (...in comparison to the OS-integrated browser). Where have I seen that?

That is very handy preference, thank you for that!

> - Give me a setting to autoconfirm all cookie consent requests and lobby for a legally binding do-not-track header. Cookie consent was well meaning, but it has turned out to make things worse. Let's move on.

This can be done with uBlock Origin and an "annoyances" filter list such as EasyList Cookie. It doesn't actually give websites consent to use of cookies, only hides the consent form.

Thanks! I really did not know of the annoyances, it really helps.

> lobby for a legally binding do-not-track header.

DNT is pretty dead, and IMHO was never a good idea in the first place. Opt-outing of invasive and unethical tracking is just weird. What about people who don't know about it? Or don't fully understand what it means?

It's almost like the Hitchhiker's Guide: "Well, you should have visited the planning department in the disused lavatory with a sign 'beware of the leopard".

I wrote some more about it over here: https://www.arp242.net/dnt.html

I always thought the point of DNT wasn’t technical, but to make it impossible to argue either (a) that users don’t really care (many opted in), or (b) that Google et al respect user’s wishes without regulation or technical barriers (they are aware of DNT and its specific meaning and they ignore it). In other words, political maneuvering towards getting the entire industry to accept implementing that technical solution.

The ultimate irony of DNT was that trackers could use the header as browser fingerprinting data..

Well, it only adds one bit of information, that is probably highly correlated with everything else being unique as well :)

True, but is DNT the lesser evil compared to what we have now, which is only annoyance and effectively no control.

Well, if you're going to lobby for a change to the law then you might as well lobby for a change that's actually a good one, instead of a half-baked one that barely works.

I would say it depends on how good any alternative solution is and how realistic it is to pass.

Edit: Having read your blog post, I want to say that I'm not necessarily asking for the original definition of DNT to be reused. What I want is for the DNT header to have the same effect as if I had said no to all optional categories of cookies.

The status quo is that we are asked a "yes or manage" question where "manage" means something horribly complicated that no one does. If we redefine DNT to mean "no to everything optional" then it becomes a matter of local law to define what is and isn't optional. This allows for the sort of minimum level of consumer protection that you're asking for.

The law could also require that this DNT header is opt-out. A per-site overridable DT header if you will.

I'm not going to claim that I have thought this through properly. It's just something that I wish Mozilla did some work on.

I just block traffic with the RFC3514 evil bit set at my firewall.

>- Give me a setting to autoconfirm all cookie consent requests and lobby for a legally binding do-not-track header. Cookie consent was well meaning, but it has turned out to make things worse. Let's move on.

Maybe there should be standardized interface for accepting privacy policy and cookies, all managed in browser UI so you could set default settings and give exceptions for specific sites without cluttering website with various popups... oh wait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P

> I don't want my passwords stored unencrypted on disk.

Passwords are always stored encrypted when you save them in Firefox. You can read more about it here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-firefox-securely-sa...

Same with Chrome actually. Your best bet is to use a proper password manager that integrates well.

Someone here responded[1], that you can just enable "EasyList Cookie" filter in adblock and it should have similar effect.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21980909

I'm extremely hesitant to give any extension automatic access to every single page I'm loading. I want Firefox to come with these things built in.

If you trust uBlock Origin, you can block cookie banners by adding https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ to uBlock Origin’s custom filter list

Regarding #3 you might want to check out the "I don't care about cookies" add-on.

I use I on Firefox mobile and desktop - don't know if there's a chromium version.

Almost forgot I use it which is the most positive review an add-on like this could receive.


Looks available on a gamut of different browsers.

Don’t forget to chip in a few bucks to the author (if you can afford it) though

> - Give me a setting to autoconfirm all cookie consent requests and lobby for a legally binding do-not-track header. Cookie consent was well meaning, but it has turned out to make things worse. Let's move on.

Most of those are implemented in JS, so NoScript goes a pretty long way to fixing this. It would be nice if Firefox somehow auto-detected them, and other useless pop-overs, and nuked them.

Unfortunately, browsing with JavaScript disabled on mobile, I've noticed quite a large number of sites (usually WordPress blogs) that have the opt out button in the HTML, controlled server-side, so you have to enable JavaScript at least once to get rid of it.

Given that I prefer brave or bromite custom tabs (via Lynket) for short sessions on mobile (and prefer not to have long sessions on mobile at all), I generally just deal with it.

> Open new windows more quickly.

Windows open more quickly now than before. A few versions ago, it had become unbearably slow (I'm an FF user since Camino died), and I stuck to using tabs only, but 72 seems to have caught up again. I estimate that it's around 0.3s slower than Chrome on my machine.

> Use the platform native key store.

Amen to that.

Confirming the window opening speedup! Previously FF spent a lot of time compiling shaders when opening a new window. Perhaps these are now been cached.

> Open new windows more quickly. Firefox feels sluggish (on Mac)

I assume you mean new tabs?

That's very quick on Windows using FF 72. Interestingly that's been a long-time annoyance of mine when using Chrome on Mac - when compared to Safari which shines here.

>I assume you mean new tabs?

No, I mean windows. Opening tabs is very fast.

Many of my workflows begin by opening an new empty browser window. I also tend to open links in new windows instead of tabs. I'm not a huge fan of tabs generally.

That's probably a pretty unusual scenario, generally speaking. On Mac I can see it making sense. Makes me curious to try out this browsing workflow...

I don't think it is.

Whilst there are the "every tab in o e window open forever" people, there are plenty of "window for task" people.

Personally, I have been a window for task person 'since forever' (tabs are context depth in said task, hence "close tabs to right" being one of the most useful features).

"window for task" is not the same thing as "tend to open links in new windows"

It loads pages slower, too. Once they actually load though, performance is on par.

Regarding the native key store, why not just use full disk encryption? The session-specific encryption never made much sense to me, unless you share the computer with others. How many processes do you really have that are not running under your user or root?

I do use full disk encryption, but when I'm logged in, any program that runs as me can access my files (subject to some partial restrictions that Apple introduced a while ago). And anyone gaining access to my unlocked computer can easily copy that password file.

You could say once malware is executed with my credentials it's game over anyway. But I disagree with that. Having a file full of passwords stolen is far worse than than anything else, including key loggers, because it's maximum damage in a minimum amount of time.

I want to make that as difficult as possible for any attacker.

> when I'm logged in, any program that runs as me can access my files

On Windows, the same is true of the encrypted data; any program that runs as you can decrypt it. Is it different on macOS? How does the system authenticate a specific program?

On the Mac, Safari and Chrome store passwords in a key chain. To reveal any of those passwords you have to re-enter your macOS login password or whatever authentication method was used to log into the device (fingerprint, face ID, ...).

So it's not the program that is authenticated. The system simply makes sure that any program accessing that particularly sensitive data is really controlled by the logged in user.

This is entirely separate from protections for other files that may or may not be encrypted.

>Chrome store passwords in a key chain

Really? I thought Chrome, same as Firefox, stored credentials in an SQL file, the reason behind it being profiles and its built-in sync service.

It appears you're right. Chrome doesn't actually use the system key chain underneath, but the UX is exactly the same as Safari.

Autofill doesn't require password entry, but before revealing any stored passwords you have to re-authenticate using the regular system login method.

I wish Firefox did the same.

That's interesting and I wonder how they do it. Nevertheless this isn't good as it offers a false security sense since the end result is similar to using a master password which is the same as the login password.

You are more likely to lose your data while the computer is on and drives decrypted than when it is off. The threat model for FDE is thieves or government physically stealing your drive. Much more people get pwned in software than physically. I mean you don't just leave root shells laying around do you?

The question was whether the keychain really protects from those software attacks. I wondered mostly because I know that Windows will allow any process running as a certain user to decrypt data stored by any other process (at least if it's stored using the Data Protection API, like Chrome does for its passwords), so it only really protects your data from other users and their malware.

It seems that macOS authenticates each process, so that might provide some extra security.

As a long time Chrome user, and someone who (admittedly) said to a FF fan about an year ago, that it's too late for FF to catch up to Chrome now. I gave FF another shot about 6 months ago, and I'm liking it more every month since then.

It has been my primary browser outside of work, the major reason I use Chrome now is for Chrome Dev Tools.

Also, some websites don't behave well in FF and I find that most of the time it's because of the site tracking being blocked. So not a big deal

Posts like this always come up in these threads and they're really great, but it's worth adding that 'switching to Firefox' isn't something anyone actually has to do. Just start using it for one thing or another and any complete change will happen naturally if it makes any sense. It's a process that involves no effort and no risk

The only thing I use Chrome for is gaming, graphics perf is still miles better than Firefox. But I'd never trust Chrome with anything as much as a private URL or a username or password, for much the same reason I wouldn't stick my hand through the bars of a cage while visiting the zoo. Did they ever get around to fixing that opt-out password sync crap?

> 'switching to Firefox' isn't something anyone actually has to do. Just start using it for one thing or another and any complete change will happen naturally

This is going to vary with different people. Have you heard the phrase "Default is destiny"? This is especially true for less technical people (the majority of web users).

Personally I'm not going to dabble, rather keeping to the safe and familiar, so I have to intentionally trial run something as my goto/default.

Chrome isn't the default on a lot of platforms.

It is on chrome notebooks. And every search on google.com prompts you to install chrome for 'a better user experience'. Soon, just by plain nagging, it ends up becoming default

Sure it isn't. Had to set up a Windows 10 laptop recently, and the amount of hoops I had to jump through, just to wrestle the default browser from Edge...!

The default browser on Windows sucks and when you get online and go to Google you get an ad to download Chrome. That sorta makes it the default.

Google has deals with many OEM vendors for Windows laptops and such. Whether it's the platform default is meaningless in this context.

I mostly agree.

I've been using web browsers since the mid 1990's and with the exception of when I first started using them I have never only used one. These days I regularly use Chrome, FF and Safari every day for different tasks.

I'm not alone in this. When I peak at other people's computers I regularly see multiple browsers being used there as well. Even the less computer savy people know to use different browers for different websites depending on what works.

This is all to say I don't quite grasp naive understandings of the browser horse races. There is likely little actual switching going on, and the concept of market share in browsers needs to be reexamined.

Before this, the last time I tried FF was when Servo was in it's early days, it was full of bugs and crappy performance. Couldn't use it for more than a few days and had to switch to Chrome.

But this time, the experience was a lot smoother. So it's not a natural switch which happens with time :)

wouldn't firefox dev edition give you the tools you need?


feature-wise firefox dev tools are pretty close to chrome's. However, if you have a large number (thousands) of sources and try to set a breakpoint, performance slows to a crawl. This probably doesn't impact a lot of web developers, but when you develop a large complicated web app and want to debug unobfuscated/unminimized code, this is a big pain point.

See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288493

interesting, thanks for the insight

FF still has some difficulties with some stuff (I've had issues with sourcemaps in particular, they would always work in Chrome but sometimes don't in FF)

I get most of my stuff working in FF so don't need to jump to Chrome most of the time but for some gnarly stuff I end up in Chrome

Thanks for the tip!

The mere fact that login into Google logs me in Chrome as well made me decide to switch to another browser. It's as simple as that. Google doesn't care about user's privacy.

(Comment I made on another thread recently):

I switched to Firefox from Chrome a couple of months ago. The sole motivation was the fiasco that ensued after Google decided to mingle Chrome Sync login with accounts.google.com cookies - there is simply no way to sign in to Chrome Sync without creating browser cookies for the same account. I wanted the benefit of saving and syncing bookmarks and extensions across my chrome installations, but I did not want to be tracked across the web with my logged in Google identity and the Chrome changes for "Identity consistency between browser and cookie jar" made it impossible. It was time to move on from Chrome.

And I have been very pleased with the new Firefox. Highly recommend it to everyone!

My browser path has been:

Netscape (1994) -> IE -> Firefox (for a long time) -> Opera (briefly, but never liked it) -> Safari (a return to the Mac platform) -> Chrome (for a long time) -> Firefox (2 months ago)

I never thought I'd return to Firefox but here I am. Browser preferences can certainly shift over time.

There are definitely preference changes over time. Another factor is how quickly the internet and browsers change... Even if your preferences remained the same, your needs will inevitably change too. It's wild to think of how much the internet and browsers have changed in the last 20 years.

Yet they still have the same basic back, forward, refresh, address bar, and bookmark components. I wonder if that'll ever change. Address bars have certainly come a long way.

> it's too late for FF to catch up to Chrome now

As someone who's been using FF since the Netscape Navigator days, I remember when people were saying similar things about Chrome and IE. Never say never.

Both Chrome and Firefox doesn't work for me. I am sad how tab management isn't given priority on both. Chrome is especially annoying with it hiding the tabs after certain number of them and Firefox takes too much space and crashes often. There is no tab stacking, auto closing, sorting, filtering and multi previews built in.

I switched to vilvadi last year and it has been a breeze.

On mobile, I don't have any preference but I avoid firefox preview now that it has been crashing on top ranking Alexa sites. I would appreciate better tab management here too because I have to switch between 5 browsers to just manage them all without them crashing.

My only beef with Vivaldi is the lack of proxy settings.

explain the downvotes? I think I am missing something here.

Ironically, I mainly use Firefox at work because of the Firefox Dev Tools. I guess we just prefer what we are used to.

FF dev tools has its weaknesses, but it also has some useful functionality chrome doesn't like seeing event listeners in the DOM view

> It has been my primary browser outside of work, the major reason I use Chrome now is for Chrome Dev Tools.

That's pretty much what I do in the past few years. Firefox is my primary personal browser, while Chrome is strictly for work only. Hopefully I can fully transition to Firefox for work stuff this year as almost all debugging features I used are available on Firefox. It's mostly just muscle memory that holding me back after years of using Chrome dev tools.

What do you use in Chrome Dev Tools that aren't in Firefox's?

"Firefox replaces annoying notification request pop-ups with a more delightful experience, by default for all users. The pop-ups no longer interrupt your browsing, in its place, a speech bubble will appear in the address bar when you interact with the site."

That should pretty much kill off a lot of the notification request crap, especially if Chrome follows suit. I can envision the conversion rate massively falling off when it's no longer something right in your face.

Slack has started disabling unrelated features if you disallow notifications. For instance, you can’t add channels to the “ignore @here” list if notifications are off. I’m sure this’ll get worse over time.

FF needs a “disable notifications, but lie to the website and say they’re enabled” button.

I've seen sites that refuse to show you their content at all until you've enabled notifications. I like this lying idea.

It should always lie. Consistently rejecting notifications is yet another bit for fingerprinting a user (not just a device).

I feel like a good extension to make would be a lying extension. Make it able to lie to a site about any API and have set configurations to deal with specific types of behavior.

Maybe even one that can randomise some settings to throw off fingerprinting.

I don't understand why browsers would ever not lie about this.

A non-malicious website could activate some alternative UI for giving you news if you disable notifications.

Maybe because of the privacy implications of web workers keeping connections/checking for new notifications in the background?

"Why are my notifications for Slack not working?"

"Because you've declined to get notifications for Slack"

This does not seem like a reasonable complaint to me.

But the application would have no way of knowing that to display this message to the user if the browser lies about it.

"Check if you have notifications enabled for Slack on your browser's settings"

It may require bandwidth and CPU to check for notifications.

I feel like if a specific browser, ie. Firefox went down this path, it wouldn't take long until websites stopped supporting that browser. It'd take browser wide action to take on big players such as Slack imo.

This is a common error people make. It’s transferring their emotions to inform what some (often companies or countries) should do.

In the specific example, it makes no sense for any single website to forgo, say, 5% of revenue to “teach browsers a lesson”, especially since any change would benefit them accrue mostly with their competitors.

See also: “Google/FB/... should leave the EU to protest these privacy laws...”

Unless a huge number of websites cooperate, they will all think it's useless for them individually to "fight the power".

No, no company is going to choose to see a -5% dip in overall engagement just because they want to fight a web browser.

How sad is the current age that this is the feature I'm most excited about in like the last 6 months of browser changes.

I never accept any notification from anywhere on desktop or mobile (except some calls) and am all the happier. Don't let others control your agenda.

In Firefox Notification prompts can be disabled entirely in settings.

In preferences type 'notifications', click the Settings button and check the box to "Block new requests asking to allow notifications"

I still remember Chrome and Firefox Engineers saying it would provide much better experience to user.

That was the era when majority of public opinion on Google was Do no Evil. And Google at the time can do no wrong.

I've built quite a few web apps that make decent use of notifications. But then the users explixitly wanted to know the things being notified.

It is pretty great for browser-based chat and email. Don't think I've ever allowed it for anything else.

It may not; you'll just get fake notification prompts from the page that will morph intro instructions on how to enable notifications when you click "accept".

This already happening for quite some time now. Many websites uses OneSignal and their fake prompt looks similar with Chrome's notification prompt (at least to ordinary users): https://documentation.onesignal.com/docs/permission-requests...

From this link:

"OneSignal Prompts are a 'soft request', meaning that they are not invoking the 'hard request' of the browser's Native Permission Prompt. This is important because if a user denies the native prompt, the developer is unable to prompt the user again, unless the user goes through a multi-step process to re-enable these permissions. On the other hand, if a user dismisses a Soft Prompt, the app or website can still present them the option later on."

Speaking for myself, showing such prompts repeatedly is a very good way to ensure that I'll never visit your website ever again. No, I don't care about your mobile app, anymore so than I did two days ago.

But it works on other people, which is why they bothered to create that in the first place.

Hi. I'm one of the founders of OneSignal.

To provide some context on this, we provide clients with 4 built-in prompting options and we do our best to encourage them to use the one that is best for their user experience.

We definitely want to discourage people from asking for notification permission in an obtrusive way. It's not good for anyone when that happens. We wrote a blog post with some recommendations here: https://onesignal.com/blog/web-push-permission-prompting-cha...

I'm not sure how to put this, but your product is "abused" to such an extent that I personally took the time to pop open the Web Inspector, find the CSS selector for the notification, and use it to look up your company and mentally blacklist it and make a point of bringing it up by name when relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21848866. Your product is seemingly fundamentally misaligned with how users want to interact with the web, to the point where browsers are implementing behaviors that specifically target your implementation. Your blog post gives me very little confidence in your commitment to making this experience better:

> OneSignal encourages all websites to adopt a two-step prompting system if they don't already do so. This will help prevent the website from being penalized and forced to show a quieter permission prompt if too many users have denied the traditional native prompt in Chrome.

Websites are being penalized for a reason, and you know this. Simply adding another modal is just making the problem worse.

> The easiest prompt to transition to is OneSignal's Slide Prompt. Ideally, however, we encourage users to use the Custom Link prompt.

The Slide Prompt should not even be offered as a transition. It's completely at odds with the intent of this browser change, which is all about user intent. Providing facilities to present annoyances that bypass user interaction is the complete opposite of this.

> Offering a coupon in exchange for users opting-in to notifications.


Please, please, please reconsider how you are implementing these. If you are genuinely unaware of the widespread misuse of your tools, I'd be more than happy to direct you to numerous examples of zero-click, near-immediate, largely irrelevant faux notification requests coming from websites using your product.

almost simultaneous announcement from Chrome: https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/introducing-quieter-permis...

> Firefox replaces annoying notification request pop-ups with a more delightful experience, by default for all users. The pop-ups no longer interrupt your browsing, in its place, a speech bubble will appear in the address bar when you interact with the site.

This is fantastic! I had finally figured out I could turn this off in settings a while ago, glad it's now a default. I get so annoyed by this, annoying indeed!

Well, it's delightfully stupid.

In a webapp where you present user a button to activate notifiactions, when the user clicks the button seemingly nothing happens in FF72 (user is focussed on a big enable notifiactions button in the web app and may not notice that some tiny gray icon wiggled a little in the address bar).

On a big screen a button in the middle of the screen is so far away from the address bar, that you don't see any change in the address bar at all in the peripheral vision.

So yeah, web apps that don't try to force the user to enable notifications are now punished for good behavior again.

EDIT: So it's not so stupid, see below.

How about web apps too not show annoying pop-ups which are pretty useless in most cases? Websites which show two pop-ups (custom pop-up followed by browser pop-up) are worse.

My website doesn't show any popups. I have a settings dialog that user can open and setup email and other notifications.

This will just not work anymore. I'll have to add some long winded FF specific explanation on what to do after clicking the button.

Anyway the FF UI is broken if user physically can't see any reaction from the browser after he requests notifications by clicking anywhere on the page.

If your users are clicking a button then it should actually show the permission prompt, unless you're losing the user interaction somewhere in the callback (by doing something async first)


This is a frequent "mistake"/issue however, and we're working on a mitigation for it.

I'm doing this:


I guess this is then happening because I'm first checking if there's a subscription via `pushManager.getSubscription` before creating a new one in the event handler.

Yep, dropping getSubscription makes the popup appear again.

I receive these popups multiple times per day. It is rare that I actually want notifications from your web site (or mobile app). Messaging is one of the few use cases that comes to mind but even then I don't always want to be notified.

Do you mind me asking what your notifications are for?

For wahtever user wants, like mentions from others in comments. It's configurable.

I've been using Firefox for the last 10 or so years. (Used the "new Chrome-Opera" for a while but went back soon)

These recent developments are awesome. As a frontend developer, I also find the devtools absolutely competitive with Chrome's.

The default ad- and tracker blocking is nice, I only need to use uBblock Origin for Youtube (whitelisting only that), since Youtube became nearly unusable due to the massive amount of ads.

Edit: also, they are fortunately tackling two prominent annoyances of the "modern web" i.e. push notification popups (for those who don't turn the whole feature off outright in about:config) and video autoplay.

So sad that Firefox's market share is still just 9-10%. :(

> I only need to use uBblock Origin for Youtube (whitelisting only that), since Youtube became nearly unusable due to the massive amount of ads.

Depends how much you're using it, but as it's pretty much become the primary source of entertainment in our household I decided the most practical and ethical option was to just pay for it.

Yeah... I'm doing the same for Deezer (paying for listening to streaming music) but I only use Youtube occasionally.

Got fed up when YT showed 2 ads every 20 minutes in the middle of a classical music concert. I'm not expecting it to be ad-free, but expecting it to be less intrusive/annoying.

slightly off topic

I enjoy ads-free YouTube experience as I’m located in Sudan. It always surprise me the amount of ads I get when I access the internet from a different location!

Not sure this is even an option outside the US.

It is available in a lot of countries.


No doubt it's not possible everywhere, but many countries offer YouTube Red (or whatever it's called now), been paying for it bundled with Google Play Music for years (in Australia).

Another front-end dev here. I tried to switch back from Chrome to Firefox, and while I was mostly impressed (especially devtools), I had a few gripes:

- Dragging tabs didn't immediately drag out a window like in Chrome

- A crashing tabs still seemed to crash/severely slow down the browser

- Sluggishness in window opening / first open.

> [gripe:] - Dragging tabs [in Firefox] didn't immediately drag out a window like in Chrome

Luckily (for me) this still holds and I see it as an advantage over Chrome; this pulling effect is amusing to look at (and I must admit that Chrome does great job when it comes to perceived speed and "snappiness" of it) but absolutely terrible feature when it comes to usability. For example it prevents transfer of tab between two full screen windows, making this task a multi steps chore. (Even for non-fullscreen windows it's quite complicated; I've summarized it some time ago in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19663744)

Hmm. I’d like the option. I use BetterSnapTool on Mac and very often tear off chrome tabs and immediately try to snap them to a side. This doesn’t work on Firefox.

With notification spam fixed, how about tackling cookie banners spam next? Let's work on a standard to allow user to set their preferred cookie settings level once in browser UI and keep websites clean.

I don't remember the website, but I ran across one on hacker news a while ago that had the best cookie popover I've ever seen. It floated over from the left hand side of the page. Had simple and clean UX allowing for user configuration of cookies. Felt a little more like a cookie control panel than a popup disclaimer. Allowed the user to select which cookies to allow with a small description of what they did.

Wish I had bookmarked the page.

Sounds like something users want. Unfortunately, that’s not what most website owners want. They want to be as annoying as possible so that you smash “agree” just to get it over with.

As a user, I want websites to just send cookie headers without asking. I'll decide if I want to store them and send them back.

What users want? GDPR allows you explicitly to serve strictly necessary cookies without asking for consent. You only have to ask if you track people or don’t know what cookies your site stores with your users.

It is 2020 and totally possible to create websites without cookies or with only functionally needed cookies. You do your users a favour and your site will look better.

The very idea of the GDPR wasn’t to force websites to display cookie banners. It was to clarify that cookies can contain identifyable personal data and can be used for tracking, which is why we should avoid using them in that way or ask for consent if it really must be used.

On that of that, a lot of websites do not allow the user to use the website if they do not give consent to allow the non-functional cookies. Which is against the GDPR.

How many of those have you reported?

I heard a talk by Ulrich Kelber, the German federal data protection officer, two months ago. He admitted that it does not make much sense right now to encourage more people to report GDPR violations. As it stands, data protection agencies are already drowning in reports and most of them are horrendously underfunded. (Especially in EU countries that are not Germany. Germany has had strong data protection laws for a long time, so the staffing situation in our data protection agencies is slightly better.)

As a user, I want it in the User Agent. I don't even know what the point of the bloody notification is. Set a cookie and redirect and see if you get it back if you want to know if I'm going to preserve your shit. Don't ask me this crap.

I believe you’re talking about metomic. Best cookie notice I’ve seen yet.


If this is the gold standard, the our standards are very low. It should be just as easy for me to say "no" as it is to say "yes", and Metomic has the same dark pattern as everybody else that saying "no" requires a lot of clicking and careful reading, while click "yes" is easy. Seriously, in Metomic it's even multiple panels! And every single one has multiple paragraphs I have to read! Whereas "yes" is a single click and the panel is out of my face. It's crap and it's intellectually insulting.

There's no law anywhere that says you need to ask permission for storing cookies. You can perfectly well make a cookie-based login without a cookie banner. This bullshit about un-uncheckable "essential cookies" toggles has to go, you don't need permission for those, they don't need to be in the dialog. The GDPR even specifies this, albeit too vaguely: it should be as easy to accept tracking as it is to reject it, and in practice even a startup 100% focused on solving this problem gives that rule the middle finger.

Seriously, fuck this shit. The banner should say "We'd like to track your behavior so we can improve our service / sell better ads / whatever¹. [Ok] [Rather not]". It's not that hard. Only give Metomic your money if you think your visitors are idiots.

¹ (strike through what does not apply)

Fandom (wikia) is pretty good. It's a big popup in the center of the page, with Yes and No buttons at the bottom, styled with equal importance. One click and it's out of my way, just as easy to decline as allow.

Of course, the gold standard is no tracking and no popup.

Click "No, Customize" and through to "Statistics". Exemplary example of how it should be done.

Just one "Nope" should be enough. Or just ignoring it and clicking elsehwhere should assume that's your answer and shut up about it forever.

keygen.sh does that

> Let's work on a standard to allow user to set their preferred cookie settings level once in browser UI and keep websites clean.

Bring back P3P, with GDPR acting as the enforcement part (which was quite lacking when P3P was first proposed)? Might work quite nicely, and the support is in browsers already, it just tends to be ignored.

I've thought exactly the same and I think now might exactly be the right time to bring it back. However can the client tell to the server if it consents or not? Second problem is of course that malicious or lazy site admins won't use P3P just that they can annoy users to click Accept.

I don't feel the same about cookies from HN, Facebook, GitLab, Slack, Amazon, Pentland Ferries, Ennerdale Brewery, or my mum's blog.

How would you detect if something is a cookie dialog in a standardized way? It's pretty much impossible as all of them are custom code with different layouts / selectors / sequence of actions you need to take to opt out.

The "I don't care about cookies" addon[0] seems to do a pretty good job of it, I've not seen a banner in ages. I assume it works on a mixture of detecting popular cookie popup js libraries, and user feedback for the rest (although I can't seem to find a github or any code for it so it's hard to say). I think ublock also has a filter list for it built-in.

0: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

I don't know if I'm paranoid but on the Mozilla add-on page, it says the code is licensed under GPLv3. So the source code MUST be available somewhere.

Seems very odd.

I can't find the source repo either (source must be made available, can be on-demand to the author, hell the author could send it to you on CD-ROMs if they felt like it and still be compliant).

That said, it makes an ABP-compatible filter list available. This works with ublock origin:


See the author's comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bru6wd/please_help...

The source code can be extracted from the extension file itself.

Not sure if it's been done already but you could use Deep Learning to detect cookie dialogs ...

Unfortunately, they are required by law (at least in Europe) and we can't do much about it. You can't say use a browser API to set a global setting for them, because GDPR explicitly requires that every website must get the user consent for them.

Of course the real solution (and the reason why GDPR introduced the banner) is for website to stop using cookies for tracking their users and thus have no reason to put the banner (you don't need the banner for technical cookies, such as the one used for logins, but only for third party profiling cookies).

A minor nitpick, but the "Cookie Law" that introduced these banners was way before GDPR, although the GDPR does have articles that also talk also about cookies.

The intent of the parts of GDPR which mention cookies (or, at least, what I assume the intent was) was to essentially "upgrade" the banner from a simple and largely useless notification (i.e "By using this site you agree to our use of cookies") to one of informed consent (i.e "Please click accept or deny the use of cookies to continue using this site").

Interestingly, as far as I am aware, no site or company has ever been taken to court or even fined for not using a cookie banner, despite some websites publically declaring they won't use it[0].

0: https://nocookielaw.com/

Important point: GDPR allows you to use strictly necessary cookies without asking for consent.

So if you hate to put cookie banners onto a site, just stick with storing only strictly necessary cookies without data that identifies your users and you are fine.

The problem is, many people don’t even know what cookies their own site stores with their users and they store a ton of tracking cookies on their user’s devices.

Isn't the whole point of cookies to identify users (for session persistence and the like, not just ads)? If you're not identifying users what are you achieving?

For some sites it could be enough to store the state of the site (e.g. display settings, language, etc) instead of a profile.

When I visit a random wordpress blog I shouldn’t need any cookie from them — why would I?

When I visit an online shop it should be my choice if they remember me (which is precisely what the GDPR demands). This could be a little toggle switch labled “Remember me” that is off by default and that would be it.

But people seem to prefer forcing their cookies onto users.

Storing the language they want to use or other configuration.

Some sites store local settings in cookies, that the user has explicitly set.

Since most websites seem to prefer slapping banners and modals on their pages as opposed to actually ridding their sites of tracking cookie usage I've found that just blocking the elements using a filterlist[0] is a nice solution.

[0] https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/

> You can't say use a browser API to set a global setting for them, because GDPR explicitly requires that every website must get the user consent for them.

I can see why that prevents a browser from auto-accepting all cookies, but how in the world does this logic apply to me if I want to deny consent to 100% of the websites to use cookies?

Set the default on the browser to deny all consent, and show the cookie notification somewhere unobtrusive, the same way it was done for notifications.

The browser already has logic/settings controlling which cookies are accepted (first party, all, none). These settings have existed in most browsers for years. It's unfortunate that the cookie law didn't build on this in some way.

The cookie law is very flexible. It considers any and all ways in which the user makes their intent explicit as good enough.

The issue is that websites want to annoy users until they finally maybe actually say yes to get the site to shut up.

Legally, tracking has to be off by default, tracking may not change the usability of the site, and tracking has to be purely optional, and the "no" has to be simpler, larger, and easier to use than the "yes".

The point of the GDPR, over the course of the next years, is to utterly destroy online advertising as a business model, and any and all tracking solutions with it.

I suspect that it would be far to expensive to make it work on the hard 20% of websites and brittle on the easy 80%.

As a personal confession I cannot sympathize for this animosity towards banners. Apps usually have a worse onboarding experience than websites.

My only considerations of GDPR notices is to note how many of them manage to be uncompliant and wonder if archiving services can bypass them.

AFAIK, this was a separate law that existed already before GDPR came along.

If this seems faster than normal it is. 72 is the first major version released on the new 4 week release cycle.

Note that with some tinkering you can already manually enable WebRender, fast GPU and Rust based rendering engine, in stable Firefox


Note also that enabling webrender might make your experience (including performance) worse.

Why would that be ?

Because it's already enabled on hardware where it's known to work well but disabled where it has issues.

Yeah, it is definitely not bug free and tabs crash more often. However I still feel performance improvement and happy to live on the edge.

MacBook Pro 2017.

I keep trying Chrome out every so often, but there's little usability issues that keep bringing me back to Firefox. For example, Chrome never wants to bring me to the correct sites when you start typing letters. It's always a site I maybe visited once (like nypost instead of news.ycombinator.com)

That's because one of Chrome team's KPIs is how many Google searches are performed through the Omnibar, and better tab search would decrease that KPI and decrease Google ad revenue.

Think about it: it's a web browser literally built by the biggest search company in the world. The latest version of Chrome will even add Google Drive files to the omnibar search for G Suite users.

There is no excuse that they have a worse omnnibox search than Firefox.

I know the hacks blog tends to stick to "what web technologies changed" but 72 also introduces "Experimental support for using client certificates from the OS certificate store can be enabled by setting the preference security.osclientcerts.autoload to true (Windows only)." which has always been a huge PITA for me while testing and many interested in these technology changes are probably interested in this flag (though maybe moreso when Mac/Linux get supported).

Safari is terrible with client certs - it seems to store the default on a per page basis rather than per domain. Changing that involves diving deep into keychain.

Chrome usually works but yesterday a colleague had problems where the dialog asking which cert to use wouldn’t respond.

Firefox just works.

It’s a shame that certificates aren’t used more widely. They don’t work at all in captive portal pages on OS X or iphones :(

I've always used the security.enterprise_roots.enabled flag for this, is this new one different?

From the property name it sounds like your property is about trust roots (CAs) and parent's about client certificates (for mutual TLS authentication).

THANK GOD. Now I can 95% swap to Mozilla Firefox for work as well.

I love the Picture in Picture feature. There are too many web sites which leave you only the choice between a rather small video or full screen. With PIP I can choose the size which works best for my screen. Also, as it floats on top, it is never covered by other applications.

One thing would make this even more increadible: is there a way to set the default size and position? If the PIP feature would always start in my preferred size and position, this would be just so great.

I use it all the time.

I generally have my browser take up 3/4 of the screen with a small bit of space on the right free.

If watching a video I can drag it into this free space and continue using browser while it's playing.

Many years ago I used to use "popup video" extensions to achieve the same thing. This works much better though.

With my preferred setup, I play videos in the upper left corner, so with the current Firefox behavior, I always have to drag the PiP video around. Not the end of the world, but it would be a huge improvement, if it remembered video positions.

Or even just remember size and position between instances

That would be the best, if a new video pops up in position and size of the previous one.

Can't wait to find out if this release fixes a bug (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1557160) that was preventing correct rendering of extension popup windows/context menus when the APZ zooming was enabled (which allows pinch-to-zoom gestures, e.g. on the MS Surface).

Update: Just got to try it out, seems like it indeed works now. Yay Firefox 72!

Finally! Been waiting for functional pinch zooming on macOS and Windows for ages. Thank you Mozilla team!

Still open in 72.0 is the APZ bug where zooming out after zooming in results in the page being wider than the window.

I'm honestly surprised that we aren't talking about tab behavior here. Literally the only reason I keep using Chrome is that no matter how many tabs I have open, they're all visible at the top.

There's visual persistence of state. On Firefox, even with the trick of reducing minimum tab width, my tabs overflow and I have to click through to get different groups of tabs. It is utterly maddening and I don't know why every other browser refuses to do Chrome like tabs.

Why the continued choice to violate the first rule of UI design which is to keep things in the same place?

I'm completely opposite. I can't use Chrome once my tabs shrink down to this: |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

With Firefox no matter how many tabs I have open, they all remain usable. There's also "% name" keyword search in address bar that finds open tabs, and check out Tree Style Tabs extension.

Chrome fixed that a few months ago.

There's no tab scrolling, but the many tabs that are visible don't break any more.

> Chrome fixed that a few months ago. > > There's no tab scrolling, but the many tabs that are visible don't break any more.

Not really. Resize your window to 1920x1080 and open 150 new tabs. In the last tab, open any site you want. Now switch back to the next to the last tab. Hover over the tab bar. That pop-up doesn't show you the last tab.

> Hover over the tab bar. That pop-up doesn't show you the last tab.

I'm not sure I follow. The popup shows you the tab you're hovering over. You wouldn't be hovering over the last tab because it's not in the visible area.

But that's unrelated to the problem they fixed. Right now, when you open a large amount of tabs, it always shows favicons. What it used to do, when tabs got smaller than about 30 pixels, was this: https://www.technorms.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/TooMany...

>I'm not sure I follow. The popup shows you the tab you're hovering over. You wouldn't be hovering over the last tab because it's not in the visible area.

That was my point.

>But that's unrelated to the problem they fixed. Right now, when you open a large amount of tabs, it always shows favicons. What it used to do, when tabs got smaller than about 30 pixels, was this...

I mean, I guess it is better, but I wouldn't consider that "fixed".

> That was my point.

But I noted that problem in my first post.

And you replied "Not really." to it.

The person you replied to said "with Firefox no matter how many tabs I have open, they all remain usable" -- you then said "Chrome fixed that a few months ago."

I understood that to mean that all tabs would remain usable.

Being able to see a sliver of a favicon when I may have another 200 tabs that I can't get to isn't really fixed in my book.

"that" isn't referring to the line about firefox, because firefox was used as an example of doing it right. "that" referred to the first line:

> I can't use Chrome once my tabs shrink down to this: |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Chrome tabs don't shrink down to a row of lines anymore.

The current behavior is still annoying but it fits a lot more tabs before breaking and it breaks much less severely.

Different people use tabs for different things. I have had browser sessions with 100+ tabs before as it can be a "spatial organization" tool more interesting than the History or Favorites lists because while I have to scroll through the tab bar, there are recognizable "neighborhoods" of tabs.

Firefox has a lot of options for tab extensions if you wanted to explore for something more to your liking.

If you want to talk about tab behaviour, you might want to have a look at the Tree Style Tabs extension:


Tabs are placed in the sidebar, nested in collapsible trees, with a scrollbar. It's a major game changer.

I'm always surprised when I find out more people don't know about this (or other vertical-tabs addons). I typically have dozens of tabs and keep them open for weeks at a time (ff is set to restore previous session. So most are usually unloaded, but I also have an addon to unload tabs at-will if it's ever a problem). Horizontal tabs feel so arcane after getting used to it, I'm surprised it's not a standard feature yet.

At that point how are they different from bookmarks? I suppose with tab tree every page is ‘bookmarked’ until you close it, or bookmark it for real.

Personally I save anything I actually want to refer back to as a PDF since the bookmarked web page will probably disappear.

Still the primary reason why I use Firefox. It allows me to have effectively an infinite number of tabs open, grouped, organized, and opened based on what I'm actually trying to get done now, or what I need to get back to later.

This is the main reason I use Firefox. Absolutely love Tree Style Tabs.

I for one prefer tab overflow (ans thus scrolling) over the Chrome nightmare that becomes /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ where I have to mouseover to try and find the tab I want rather than being able to visually identify it with a glance.

My other bugbear with Chrome tabs is the inability to make all new tabs get added to the end of the list rather than after the active tab, in FF it's just a simple `about:config` option: `browser.tabs.insertRelatedAfterCurrent=false`

> Literally the only reason I keep using Chrome is that no matter how many tabs I have open, they're all visible at the top.

That might be true for you, but on my 1920x1080 screen, Chromium appears to stop even trying to show any new tabs in the tab bar after around 125.

I have 453 tabs in this Firefox window.

Personally, I like the firefox way. Even if I have hundreds of tabs open I can just scroll tabs by hovering mouse and using wheels alternatively there is a popup menu which works for some.

FYI, you don't need to click to scroll the tabs, you can just scroll with the mouse wheel.

The most sane solution would be to show tabs in multiple rows. Every other piece of software (notably including OSs) does this, but somehow it's an alien concept in browser land.

With Firefox, thankfully, there's a way to enable such display style: https://github.com/Izheil/Quantum-Nox-Firefox-Dark-Full-Them...

Are they doing anything about floating videos? It's annoying on desktop, but on mobile it's so bad I just don't bother. Typically it's "news" sites that use it.

IIRC they disabled autoplay for videos with sound. In the settings you can also completely disable autoplay for all videos.

The picture in picture is such a great feature. Thanks Firefox devs :)

Picture in picture was a feature I didn't know I wanted all along.

I often had a window open only playing a youtube video, having it be native to the browser and always on top is such a great feature.

Open in new window. Resize window. Right-click title bar, select "Always on Top".

App developers spend a lot of their time making up for the poor decisions of OS developers. A good window manager would give you tabs for free, PiP (aka an always-on-top window) for free, dark mode for free. Instead OS devs go overboard in simplifying things to the point that app devs have to pay the cost of delivering what users want.

Take YouTube for example. It's difficult to resize the window so it's _just_ the video (they size things so you always see the video + title).

With a proper PiP mode, that's no longer an issue.

Win10 (the version I have at work) has removed "keep above" and made it application specific, OneNote has it, Word doesn't. It's crazy.

Windows has never had a universal "keep above" menu option.

> app developers spend a lot of their time making up for the poor decisions of OS developers

On the other hand, Firefox keeps the close button for tabs on the right, even in macOS where every close button is on the left.

Thankfully, I've found a bit of userChrome that corrects this, as a workaround.

That's actually the issue. Most operating systems don't have the windowing capabilities of most Linux distributions.

I'm stuck on a Mac, where I cannot always on top, hide the title bar, or alt-drag windows to move them.

macOS also has it's own PiP mode, which is nicer than what Chrome has. I wonder if FF is using their own implementation as well.

It's a custom implementation, sadly :(

All it needs now is some way to force Twitter-based videos to not mute when the parent window's not in focus.

Agreed. I use it all the time. There is an issue where the video in the pop-up can be slightly "laggy" for some reason, not sure why that is. Otherwise great feature.

It's such a great update again!

And now this: "Following in Mozilla's footsteps, Google announced today plans to hide notification popup prompts inside Chrome starting next month"

I love how Google follows Firefox with these "better web experience" features but only if they don't impact their business model.

Firefox keeps getting better. I really want to switch. The only thing that’s holding me back is the design. It just doesn’t look as modern as Chrome or Brave. The back button is a different height than the search bar; the tab container doesn’t line up with the search from the left side of the window. And it has a weird mix of slightly-square and rounded buttons, which makes it feel like a second-class browser.

I know that the average person isn’t concerned with these things, but I spend almost all of my day in a browser, and I want it to look as good (or better) than the competition.

You like what you like, but I just want to point out that as a Firefox-first user, when I switch to Chrome to check that whatever I'm working on is cross-browser functional, I am struck with how bad Chrome looks. So I think some of what you perceive as "modern" is just what you're used to, and a short time after switching it will not bother you.

But, of course, you like whatever you like.

i think the problem is that firefox looks out of place when compared to chrome, safari, brave, vivaldi etc

> The back button is a different height than the search bar

If you right click the top bar, click Customize, click the "Density" menu on the bottom, and use "Compact", the back button is the same height.

Also note that a large Back button is a result of usability research, as the Back button is the most clicked item in the browser.

If you really wanted to switch, as you say, you would've done so regardless of aesthetic imperfections.

That’s a strange take.

If you’re interested in having Chrome’s look in Firefox, check out MaterialFox.


This is actually amazing! Completely changes the feel of the browser. It makes much more of a difference than I imagined it would. It feels so so much better on Mac.

Wow, I didn't even realize this was possible. It looks really nice. Thanks!

Unfortunately userchrome.css breaks frequently with firefox updates and is a pain to maintain since it is outside of the extension ecosystem.

There used to be a great addon called ClassicThemeRestorer that got killed during firefox's terrible web extension debacle. It lives on in https://github.com/Aris-t2/CustomCSSforFx but different parts break everytime the fickle designers at mozilla change their mind on what a tab should look like.

I also don't like the UI, but it's only a default. After installing, right click anywhere on the top UI to pull up "Customize...", then in the tab that appears, select "Density" and change it from Normal to "Compact".

The compact UI has back/forward buttons being the same size. The UI also takes up less space and is generally nicer IMO

I find the notification permission change (requiring it to be after a user gesture) really annoying. It doesn't do almost anything to combat permission spam (if you're visiting a clickbait site, you'll probably click or scroll at least once, especially on mobile where sites usually have a giant header so you need to scroll past the fold to even see that the article is clickbait), and just inconveniences developers who have to special-case Firefox's divergence from the spec when trying to legitimately use the gated features.

If it's treated the same way as popup windows, then scrolling shouldn't count.

Firefox should include a setting to disable all requests for notifications much like they give you total control to block autoplay.


If anyone from Mozilla is reading, is it too much to ask to host apk's for the mobile version on your site and provide other update mechanisms apart from google app store? Like what Signal are doing.

It's not the most discoverable thing, but according to https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms/Android this link will always download the newest version: https://download.mozilla.org/?product=fennec-latest&os=andro...

Finally. The notifications popup is seriously annoying.

What we really need in these permission popups is the ability to say "no to all permissions from Gawker Media brands" and the problem would be mostly solved.

What we really need:

* Websites with notifications that are frequently denied by users, will lose the ability to request web notifications permissions. Users must manually enable it through Domain Settings.

It seems like even adding it as a feature was a terrible idea, it's an example of how users needs are no longer the driving force behind web browsers. Was it supposed to replace RSS or something?

The purpose of this, and many other newer web APIs like webusb, is to achieve parity with native applications.

There defining competition these days is between websites and iOS/Android apps, and Google’s future depends on the web not losing.

You can disable them for all sites in prefs IIRC.

Yep! I have this and it works perfectly.

- about:config

- dom.webnotifications.enabled = false

That's it. Haven't seen one in months.


What do people use for “Profiles”. I need ability to switch easily between profiles (different identities) without going to command line. I also don’t want to install a third party extension for that if possible

Firefox has a Container Tabs extension which does just this - the defaults are profiles for Work, Personal, Banking, and Social, and you can add more. You do have to install it but I think the extension is from Mozilla itself, so it's not exactly third-party. It's just features that are already in the nightly builds as I understand it [0]. Personally I've really enjoyed it so far!

[0] - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers

Additionally, the actual functionality is just built into Firefox; all the extension does is expose a UI to manage it.

The extension also allows you to set that a particular site be assigned to, and automatically open in, a given container. I don't believe this particular feature is built into Firefox.

Indeed, it's just the containerisation functionality and assigning a tab to open in a Container that's built in; actually initiating the opening is done by the extension, e.g. when you navigate to a specific origin.

On macOS, instead of running Firefox via the app icon, I run a an AppleScript[0] that forces Firefox to launch with the Profile Manager window. I have it bundled as a one-step Automator application, which I run from Spotlight but which can easily be added to the Dock or whatever.

I used to have this script built as an app bundle via Platypus, but that stopped working somewhere between Yosemite and Mojave (likely due to increasingly strict OS file permissions or something). The Automator app doesn't seem to suffer from this issue...I think I just had to grant it a couple permissions the first time I ran it.

I wasn't able to figure out how to set a custom icon from within Automator, but it's not too hard to do if you're comfortable mucking around inside app bundles. The icon file is stored under <app-bundle-root>/Contents/Resources/, and its name (sans extension) is referenced in <app-bundle-root>/Info.plist.

[0]: https://gist.github.com/ilikepi/9d2e17e0d3b3efd6fc0584f46f09...

use containers in FF instead. That was what got me to switch from Chrome years ago to FF.


Can't you just go to "about:profiles"? Sure, it opens a new instance of Firefox, but this works fine for me.

There's the first-party extension, Multi-Account Containers[1].

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

Seems like you could create desktop shortcuts for this using the -P switch.

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