Firefox 74(mozilla.org) |
Firefox 74(mozilla.org) |
Brave, with it's dead easy setup should be an example to follow.
Features just for insta? I thought this was a web browser not an instagram browser. I guess same goes for the facebook container... what's up with building browser features for facebook? Why no reddit container, or google container, or amazon container?
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/08/21/mozilla-takes-actio...
[2] https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-removal-of-the-dissenter... [3] https://hub.packtpub.com/mozilla-and-google-chrome-refuse-to...
Or does FireFox's picture in picture code have special casing for some sites?
They fixed a site-specific bug. It takes some creativity (and a strategically short quote) to get outraged over a browser update improving how the browser renders websites.
Even if you ignore Firefox's weird horizontal menu items, it looks wrong, and it acts wrong.
The dividers have a non-standard color. Some menu items have tooltips. One item has an icon, and it doesn't highlight correctly. When dismissed, the menu disappears sharply instead of fading out.
(To add insult to injury, the menu doesn't even use the system language. There's some internal setting that nobody can find which causes it to use Japanese even though my system and Firefox prefs are all set to English.)
The position is wrong, too. I'm used to dragging one pixel to the right, but that's not far enough to highlight the first item in Firefox. Many keyboard shortcuts are missing, e.g., the common ways to jump to the top/bottom item (home/end, cmd-up/down) don't work.
The two biggest issues are that I can't give the container a list of domains beforehand and say "everything under google.com should open here". I have to go to each Google subdomain and set it to "always open in this container" with three or four clicks. The other major issue is that there's no way to have links outside those domains open outside the container, so whenever I click a link on Gmail that goes to Github, Github opens in the Google container and I always have to copy/paste the address to a new tab.
Fixing those two annoyances would make the built-in containers feature amazing. Maybe I should file a feature request.
EDIT: I have filed a feature request: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1621276
In the meantime, I am very happy with the unofficial "Google Container" addon [1], which is just a copy of the Facebook container that works its magic on Google domains instead.
Give it a try. It doesn't interfere with the official Facebook container addon.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/contain-amazo...
[2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/microsoft-con...
What I want is for every web page to run in its own container by default. Zero configuration.
If it wants to access anything outside of its allowed domain hiearchy (like call an external API), I'd like the browser to ask for permission on its behalf. "Github.com would like to share data with Microsoft.com. Allow/Deny?"
There could be some kind of trust standard so that Github.com can prove that they are the same legal entity as Microsoft.com and is therefore authorized to share information without asking. Or perhaps something simpler that is DNS-based, like with email.
When I want to stay logged into anything I self-manage and create a named container. (This requires micromanaging but is at least opt-in.)
But the default of separate temp containers is great.
But just consider the automatic way a regular user clicks at any prompt that gets in their way out of habit...
I am guilty of this sometimes, even though I try to be mindful and always try to opt-out of tracking cookies, etc.
I think the system you're proposing has to have some sort of smart way to whitelist, either by granting temporary whitelisting with varying granularity (e.g. for this session, for 1 hour, forever ... Etc).
I think Privacy Badger (the add-on) has partially solved this (learning through counting how many times a tracker's domain appears on other sites), maybe this could applied in reverse: automatically whitelist after N approvals.
What do you think?
Sadly most sites use a lot of third party javascript, css etc so it will be a clunkier experience than you are hoping for.
Google intercepts clicks and redirects them through a Google Domain to track clickthru. If you're in Gmail and hover over a link it will show the actual destination but onclick your browser opens a mail.google.com URL that redirects to the destination URL.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/skip-redirect...
This one handles the other situation, tracking parameters added to the URL that are intentionally passed to the target site:
I don't know how you'd enforce it at the browser level because obviously there are tons of legit uses for modifying a link on click... but it should be enforced somehow.
I use this in combination with "normal" containers and it works a treat
https://github.com/mozfreddyb/webext-firstpartyisolation
It sometimes (rarely) breaks payment processors but otherwise works fine
I had the same problem so I made a small extension that does that:
https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/container-outgoi...
The Conex extension https://github.com/kesselborn/conex goes beyond by (optionally) prompting you for which container you want. The best part of this extension is that it lets you hide tabs that aren't in the same container, effectively giving you tab groups based on container. Once you get used to it, you won't want to go back to having 80 tabs displayed at once.
In addition
My problem with that is that, even if I do this, it doesn't remember it for foo.abc.com, and when I'm in the container, links to def.com won't open outside the container.
You can right-click links and open them in a "New Container Tab" (including "No Container").
Edit: You can also right-click on the tabs and select "Reopen in Container"
So whether it's more correct to be referring to the built-in functionality (including some of the UI elements), or the add-on, depends on exactly what you're talking about. And it's hard to distinguish.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". All companies should have the same access to the technology in user's browser. Favoring Google by Chrome seems no different than blocking Facebook by Firefox. It's the same behavior, just a difference in opinions.
edit: to clarify, I am in agreement with the parent comment, the above is just about Facebook container being a feature
Shouldn't Firefox offer a one click unsubscribe botton?
Not mentioned in the changelog for this release is that in the URL bar, when I start typing and the suggestion list drops down, the first result is now highlighted in an eye-destroying bright green (even in dark mode, which I'm using).
[0] https://mozillagfx.wordpress.com/2020/03/02/moz-gfx-newslett...
Programming can be so hard: "So then what was the bug?"
Chrome following when 81 gets released (currently in beta).
An IETF Best Common Practice document saying to stop using TLS 1.0 (and TLS 1.1 which was rarely used in practice) will probably be published later this year. I liked this document's original name better but alas it's more important for people to act on correct advice than for the advice to make me smile.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moriarty-tls-oldversi...
Do they mean the facebook container addon will come as standard, pre-installed with 74 or do they only mean they updated the addon? Little bit confused, feels a bit strange if they meant the later (under the new firefox release), but a at the same time when I updated 73 to 74 I could not see any traces of the "facebook container" in 74, no added addon. Is it meant fb container should should be like an pre-installed addon?
The latter.
> But when we need an exception, you can now create one by adding custom sites to the Facebook Container.
> "Highlighted by developer Henrik Skupin, users of Firefox Nightly on macOS will see a "huge decrease of its power usage by a factor of about 3x" when loading webpages. The change, which revolves around using CoreAnimation for rendering, cuts down on the amount of power required for the process."
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/09/03/firefox-macos-tes...
If I blacklisted a website in control center it is respected in all browsers even in private mode.
"killer" is right, "feature" is not. It's very anti-competitive and for those who don't want to use Safari it means iOS is just not an option.
> If I blacklisted a website in control center it is respected in all browsers even in private mode.
This is useful if you're using multiple browsers, but why bother if they're all Safari?
Cool! This sounds like something all programming languages should have had decades ago.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
There is a place for languages that use more keywords and fewer operators as a design choice. Of course there also need to be languages that don’t have the undefined/null value and don’t need this.
I'm working on a project built on Angular7 at the moment, and the version of Typescript we use is too old for this operator.
What happens when the browser supports an operator the version of Typescript you are using doesn't?
Nothing, because the compiled TypeScript won't contain it. TypeScript is deliberately conservative about the language features it supports to ensure it never gets out of sync with JS.
Well I'm certain that it won't compile. Your .ts file must go through tsc after all before you get .js
Surely that depends on how hard the application wants to try? I suppose they might mean that installing add-ons externally is now unsupported.
[1]: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/compo...
Nope. I didn't find a lot of activity here (most was wrong), but Albertsons and Home Depot had hits. I've never given either my Facebook info.
There's nothing Mozilla can do about that too.
Link seems broken.
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2020-March...
> Your login management has improved with the ability to reverse alpha sort (Name Z-A)
Cool!
The Firefox Account has no communication options and does not send promotional emails: https://accounts.firefox.com/settings
Not sure what lists you're subscribed to, but they aren't part of this account. What mailing lists have you subscribed to or what service are you talking about?
https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/fggla9/get_the_f_o...
Check the bottom. When you clickthrough the Email preferences link, you're presented with a list of several email lists you can subscribe/unsubscribe from.
Edit: I was subscribed to a couple lists I never directly opted-in to receive, though I never received any emails from those lists.
Btw, I'm not against looking at FF again, but looking at this changelog and recent product direction, they honestly feel lost.
[0]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1610993 [1]: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/55aa8b3e0f6a
Considering that Mozilla is already protecting their users from specific target sites, it is only logical to assume that they are also improving user experience for a website which has 1B+ users.
Edit: I still cannot overcome the fact that both products are owned by the same company.
I guess when you don't have enough market share to force extremely popular websites to fix themselves, you're forced to fix them yourself.
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/73.0.1/releasenotes/ [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1613943
> When a video is uploaded with a batch of photos on Instagram, the Picture-in-Picture toggle would sit atop of the “next” button. The toggle is now moved allowing you to flip through to the next image of the batch.
What you mean is probably multi-profile. I have never used that with chrome, but with FF I can go to about:profiles to open a new one or (according to a quick search) have a shortcut to the profile switcher or to a specific profile. What does Chrome do better?
I haven't used Chrome in a long time, but this is the primary major thing I miss from it (possibly the only thing).
E.g. we have a family computer that my spouse and I use. I have set up separate profiles for us and forced Firefox to ask which profile to use on launch. But this means that if she has the browser open and has stepped away, I can't just open a new window, switch to my profile, and do things under it. I have to fully quit the browser and restart it.
If I remember correctly, with Chrome the profile was essentially tied to the logged in account and it was possible to have multiple windows open to different accounts. With Firefox you need to sign out of a Sync account before logging in to another.
See 2.5.6 here - https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
There is some annoying UI lag when opening a new tab though, as it takes a fraction of a second to swap from default to a new temporary container.
I wouldn't recommend it for family or friends, but I'm happy with the trade off
For example when they recently updated their android app, it was phrased as "our new android app" with the possible implication that it was written from scratch more recently [I was already using it]. And probably to a lot of potential users, it might as well be new, because most people are not on it.
Seems a tad slimy/deceptive/over-hyping. But I understand that the public at large is unaware of the feature set and they wish to make a good impression.
edit: sounds like another addon idea: find the minimal set of 3rd parties needed to render a website.
uMatrix tries to do this already with some third party scripts, but it’s a moving target.
That is not what I asserted.
I asserted I don't care about it. I don't believe Netflix tracks me outside of .netflix.com and I don't believe Apple tracks me outside of .apple.com (and the other domains ofc). If they do, you have to convince me it is harming my interests (ie. my privacy or freedom of choice).
I know Google tracks me, I know Facebook tracks me. Their profit model is surrounded by this tracking. I know Amazon and Microsoft track me. Their profit model partly relies on tracking.
That redirect always bugged me.
EDIT: I just noticed on the install page "This is not a Recommended Extension. Make sure you trust it before installing.Learn more" which is annoying.
(I am running Nightly and am happily clicking away TST tabs with the 'x'.)
Singling out facebook and google would absolutely be correct actions, and making it more obvious to users how to do that is a net good.
Now I have to find a provider that doesn't leak in the dumbest of ways.
In the former scenario you'd basically get 2 new tabs, in the later you'd have a tab represent two different containers based on where you navigate in history.
Either way it sounds unsavory.
The app itself is quite slow to open on the platforms I've used it on. Searching for items is also slow. It doesn't allow for custom types (like WiFi, software licenses and other things), like the commercial ones do.
All urls that are not "pinned" to a container open in a temporary container.
All the tabs were as is. But I also purposefully did not open or close any tabs between (2) and (3). Not sure what the impact of that would be.
!*.google.com , Google
!* , No ContainerThe site linked to is not assigned to any container. It opens in the old container, while it should open in the default container.
The idea of having a link clicked inside a container and expect it to go to a different container as a default setting, seems to contradict web standars. Now, if you've explicitly assigned the clicked domain to a different container, then yes, it should go to its container (which is how it works, to me at least).
There's Invidation addon to avoid Twitter/YouTube and redirect to Nitter/Invidious, and there's some addons to avoid CDNs such as Cloudflare / Amazon/ Akamai. There's also an addon to remove garbage in URLs such as AMP (I mean, wtf?).
If you want to avoid these completely, plus GAFAM, your internet (browsing) experience isn't annoying; it is broken.
I avoid Uber/Airbnb/Pinterest already (niches I don't care about) and Yandex/Baidu is not meant for my demographics.
Invidition is just a wrapper. Doesn't solve the larger problem which is what's happening on the server. Last time I tried it YouTube was completely broken because Google changed a tiny little thing.
Twitch is Amazon.
I'm aware of wrapper usage. I just use youtube-dl from CLI whenever I see a YouTube linked referenced which should interest me.
You can use about:profiles and click the "Launch profile in new browser" button for the relevant profile. The UI is not amazing, and I would not recommend it to a non-techie given all the noise in it, but it does work....
I'm sure our use cases are different but I'd like to understand yours better.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Command_Lin...
The --no-remote flag tells Firefox that no, you really want another Firefox.
But I'm not aware of any "web standard" codifying container behaviour.
What does that have to do with containers, or better, why do you believe what many users want is forbidden by "web standards"?
But if I click a Google link, it already goes to a different container (the Google one), because I've told it to.
> Now, if you've explicitly assigned the clicked domain to a different container, then yes, it should go to its container
I am trying to assign "all non-google.com links" to open in the default container.