| |
| ▲ | inigyou 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You know you can make a browser based on Firefox's core and don't need to make a new one from scratch that'll never get past Cloudflare? | | |
| ▲ | swed420 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You know you can make a browser based on Firefox's core If you want to inherit all of Firefox's flaws, I suppose. > and don't need to make a new one from scratch that'll never get past Cloudflare? Considering Cloudflare is a sponsor of Ladybird, something tells me they're going to grant an exception for it. | | |
| ▲ | chironjit an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Sadly Cloudflare's browser detector is the main barrier to using Servo for most websites, so they're not the angel they seem | |
| ▲ | Larrikin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What flaws exactly? People on here love to moan about Firefox because Mozilla did one thing at some point in the existence of the company they didn't like. But then just cede the Internet to Google and chromium clones because at some point when they were a crappy junior JS dev, Chrome had some better tooling over Firebug so they just got used to testing in one browser. Maybe they also like to remember how Firefox, a decade ago, couldn't handle 1000 tab sessions. I hope Firefox keeps up the fight but HN loves to crap all over them for not being perfect. | | |
| ▲ | tombert an hour ago | parent [-] | | Can’t speak for all users, but at least as of about six months ago, there appears to be a bug in Firefox in NixOS where the shader cache doesn’t appear to be able to write properly, and as such video acceleration doesn’t work. It became most evident when I was trying to watch 360-degree videos in Immich. Entirely possible that this is an issue specific to NixOS or my machine, but because of that issue I switched over to Brave. I would like to go back to Firefox at some point. Maybe I’ll see if I can make a patch to fix video acceleration on NixOS. | | |
| ▲ | fouc 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | the obvious thing to do is keep using firefox as your daily driver, and load up the other browser as needed for the video etc. I'm being tongue-in-cheek here because it seems most people just give up on safari/firefox if one thing doesn't work and go to some chromium-based browser as their default driver. That's sad. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Plont 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They literally didn't deny that. They made a separate point you appear not to have actually read. Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. They'd absolutely end up allowing their own "acceptable" telemetry and ads. Even if they didn't, it would be unlikely to ever be as effective as Ublock Origin. Much like how Chromium browsers' built-in adblocking is barely anything in comparison, even on Manifest V2. And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I like a few of the Chromium browsers well enough, but they are ultimately at the mercy of Google. I hope Ladybird does well, too. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Their separate point was ignored because it was an irrelevant tangent. > Regardless, I don't want baked-in Firefox adblocking in part because I don't trust Mozilla with that task either. This is in a thread about how we should be happy that FF is vetting code for us. Do we trust them or don't we? > And yet, for now, Firefox and Mozilla is by far the lesser evil. I'm instinctively tempted to agree, but the difference is so negligible at this point that the only sign I would is the fact I'm still using FF due to momentum (as well as Ladybird not being ready from prime time yet). FF/Mozilla has proven itself to be controlled opposition, so I'm not very interested in games of "lesser-of-two-evils" abuser logic that has infected politics and many other spheres in a race to the bottom. | | |
| ▲ | aaplok 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Do we trust them or don't we? GP trusts them for reviewing external extension code, and ensure that it does not contain malware, but not for not inserting exception to their own telemetry if they wrote the code themselves. Or, more likely, they feel that having two independent actors collaborating on the extension (one by writing and the other by reviewing) yields a more trustworthy outcome than either actor on their own. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That was a rhetorical question. Mozilla have given us plenty of reasons to not trust them, which makes it hilarious that anybody would think it's noteworthy they're reviewing the code of Raymond Hill of all people. |
|
|
|
|
