3 ms·

I use Firefox on my Android, but I don't think there's any reasons for the vitriol. For example this needs a reference, because I don't buy it: > apart from se

I use Firefox on my Android, but I don't think there's any reasons for the vitriol. For example this needs a reference, because I don't buy it: > apart from sending your every keystroke to the mothers Chrome is not just reasonably good, but actually the forefront runner in some areas. It has some nice touches to it, like how it pops that magnifier on taps, preventing fat fingering. It's also the best browser in terms of web standards implemented. For example it's the only mobile browser I know that implements the Push and the Notifications API, so you no longer need the native Facebook app, as Facebook's web interface now delivers push notifications on Android: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/03/push-notifications-on-the-open-web?hl=en https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/03/push-notif... Another example, Chrome also does web app manifests properly and Add to Homescreen actually works, compared with Firefox: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-for-installable-web-apps-with-webapp-manifest-in-chrome-38-for-Android https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-fo... Along with other features, like giving access to the phone's camera, or giving each website its own "window", Chrome is the mobile browser that is built for web applications and sadly Firefox Mobile is not. And actually this has always been a difference in philosophy. It's why Chrome started with the one process per tab and with strong sandboxing on the desktop as well, Chrome being built for applications. So you know, I love my Firefox, but sometimes I feel that they are spending resources on a small niche mobile OS that would have been better spent on improving Firefox Mobile. It's the end of 2015 and Add to Homescreen is still broken, which pains me greatly because I prefer web stuff instead of native apps.

kibwen 11y ago
> Chrome is the mobile browser that is built for web > applications and sadly Firefox Mobile is not. And > actually this has always been a difference in > philosophy. It's why Chrome started with the one > process per tab and with strong sandboxing on the > desktop as well, Chrome being built for applications. Looking forward, Mozilla is adopting this philosophy in Servo by targeting mobile first and foremost, as well as taking sandboxing seriously from the get-go: https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/667494515582758913 https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/667494515582758913
- mtgx 11y ago
  > taking sandboxing seriously from the get-go I'm curious how that would work. I know the desktop Firefox will only - very gradually - move to a complete sandboxing architecture, because of the way it will break many add-ons. But Firefox for Android already supports extensions - is it only the Chrome-like/WebExtensions-like extensions it supports now? Is that why it will be easier to move to a complete sandboxing system on mobile first?
  - Gankro 11y ago
    Multi-process to isolate tasks, and whitelists for system apis to minimize the priviledge of each task. Servo has no back-compat concerns. It will be using browser.html -- no legacy XUL addons at all.
sandGorgon 11y ago
what is the problem with Add to Homescreen. Firefox Mobile does have it .
- bad_user 11y ago
  The first mobile browser I used and that delivered deeper integration for web apps was Safari on iOS. By including some meta tags in your HTML head, like apple-mobile-web-app-capable, viewport and apple-touch-icon, upon adding a shortcut to your homescreen it would use a high-res icon and then on opening it would hide the address bar, set the initial scale and even use a startup image. This would make it possible for web apps to pretend that they are apps. This functionality is actually old, see here: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/ConfiguringWebApplications/ConfiguringWebApplications.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/AppleA... And of course, these are proprietary extensions to Safari, so since then a proposal for a standard happened and got implemented in Chrome. The way forward is to specify a JSON file containing a specification, called the app's manifest. I already mentioned it above, but see here: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-for-installable-web-apps-with-webapp-manifest-in-chrome-38-for-Android https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-fo... Firefox Mobile on Android does not implement it. BUT, they have a very similar manifest for Firefox OS, but that is not compatible with the new W3C standard. I can't really blame them for Firefox OS, as they probably developed this format before the W3c specification, of which they were also a part of. See here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Build/Manifest https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Build/Manifest But yes, take a recent Android and try Add to Homescreen for say Facebook or Twitter. And compare the result. Yes, a shortcut gets added to your homescreen, with a low resolution icon and no integration whatsoever. Heck, sometimes it doesn't even use the normal favicon. My old iPhone 3GS was handling this better 5 years ago. Their strategy right now is to implement new APIs meant for web apps, including the above mentioned manifest, but only for privileged applications, packaged as a zip file and only installable via the Firefox Marketplace, an effort part of Firefox OS. And even though that's cool and you can install and run some of those apps on Android and probably on the desktop as well, that's not the Web. And I'm not even asking for much. For my needs all I want is high-res icons, as I've got a resolution of 2560×1440 on my Nexus and those icons that Firefox adds are freaking horrible.
Excavator 11y ago
> like how it pops that magnifier on taps, preventing fat fingering Zoomed View? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=663803 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=663803 > It's also the best browser in terms of web standards implemented. http://caniuse.com/#compare=firefox+45,chrome+49,and_chr+46,and_ff+42 http://caniuse.com/#compare=firefox+45,chrome+49,and_chr+46,... Looks pretty "even" to me? Mostly the things Google seem to be focusing on is things they can use in their services or that can use their already existing services as a back-end, for example speech synthesis. > implements the Push and the Notifications API Push API is available in Firefox Dev Edition¹·². > Along with other features, like giving access to the phone's camera What do you mean? This is available via the same API in Firefox. > giving each website its own "window" Think you could clarify what you mean with "window"? 1: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/10/keep-pushing-it-with-the-w3c-push-api/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/10/keep-pushing-it-with-the-w... 2: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/Push_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/Push_API

kibwen 11y ago

> Chrome is the mobile browser that is built for web > applications and sadly Firefox Mobile is not. And > actually this has always been a difference in > philosophy. It's why Chrome started with the one > process per tab and with strong sandboxing on the > desktop as well, Chrome being built for applications. Looking forward, Mozilla is adopting this philosophy in Servo by targeting mobile first and foremost, as well as taking sandboxing seriously from the get-go: https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/667494515582758913 https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/667494515582758913

mtgx 11y ago
> taking sandboxing seriously from the get-go I'm curious how that would work. I know the desktop Firefox will only - very gradually - move to a complete sandboxing architecture, because of the way it will break many add-ons. But Firefox for Android already supports extensions - is it only the Chrome-like/WebExtensions-like extensions it supports now? Is that why it will be easier to move to a complete sandboxing system on mobile first?
- Gankro 11y ago
  Multi-process to isolate tasks, and whitelists for system apis to minimize the priviledge of each task. Servo has no back-compat concerns. It will be using browser.html -- no legacy XUL addons at all.

sandGorgon 11y ago

what is the problem with Add to Homescreen. Firefox Mobile does have it .

bad_user 11y ago
The first mobile browser I used and that delivered deeper integration for web apps was Safari on iOS. By including some meta tags in your HTML head, like apple-mobile-web-app-capable, viewport and apple-touch-icon, upon adding a shortcut to your homescreen it would use a high-res icon and then on opening it would hide the address bar, set the initial scale and even use a startup image. This would make it possible for web apps to pretend that they are apps. This functionality is actually old, see here: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/ConfiguringWebApplications/ConfiguringWebApplications.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/AppleA... And of course, these are proprietary extensions to Safari, so since then a proposal for a standard happened and got implemented in Chrome. The way forward is to specify a JSON file containing a specification, called the app's manifest. I already mentioned it above, but see here: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-for-installable-web-apps-with-webapp-manifest-in-chrome-38-for-Android https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-fo... Firefox Mobile on Android does not implement it. BUT, they have a very similar manifest for Firefox OS, but that is not compatible with the new W3C standard. I can't really blame them for Firefox OS, as they probably developed this format before the W3c specification, of which they were also a part of. See here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Build/Manifest https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Build/Manifest But yes, take a recent Android and try Add to Homescreen for say Facebook or Twitter. And compare the result. Yes, a shortcut gets added to your homescreen, with a low resolution icon and no integration whatsoever. Heck, sometimes it doesn't even use the normal favicon. My old iPhone 3GS was handling this better 5 years ago. Their strategy right now is to implement new APIs meant for web apps, including the above mentioned manifest, but only for privileged applications, packaged as a zip file and only installable via the Firefox Marketplace, an effort part of Firefox OS. And even though that's cool and you can install and run some of those apps on Android and probably on the desktop as well, that's not the Web. And I'm not even asking for much. For my needs all I want is high-res icons, as I've got a resolution of 2560×1440 on my Nexus and those icons that Firefox adds are freaking horrible.

Excavator 11y ago

> like how it pops that magnifier on taps, preventing fat fingering Zoomed View? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=663803 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=663803 > It's also the best browser in terms of web standards implemented. http://caniuse.com/#compare=firefox+45,chrome+49,and_chr+46,and_ff+42 http://caniuse.com/#compare=firefox+45,chrome+49,and_chr+46,... Looks pretty "even" to me? Mostly the things Google seem to be focusing on is things they can use in their services or that can use their already existing services as a back-end, for example speech synthesis. > implements the Push and the Notifications API Push API is available in Firefox Dev Edition¹·². > Along with other features, like giving access to the phone's camera What do you mean? This is available via the same API in Firefox. > giving each website its own "window" Think you could clarify what you mean with "window"? 1: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/10/keep-pushing-it-with-the-w3c-push-api/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/10/keep-pushing-it-with-the-w... 2: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/Push_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/Push_API