9 ms·

Containers Come to Firefox Test Pilot

199 points by groovecoder 10y ago

nachtigall 10y ago
I do find the name – "containers" – a bit confusing. "Contextual identities" would seem like a better fit, because that's what it will be used for. I am reading this name also on other places, surprised Mozilla sticked with "containers": * https://blog.mozilla.org/tanvi/2016/06/16/contextual-identities-on-the-web/ https://blog.mozilla.org/tanvi/2016/06/16/contextual-identit... * https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec... * https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project/Containers https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec...
- smacktoward 10y ago
  It's only confusing if you're a technical person -- the sort of person who hears "containers" and thinks "oh, Docker." For laypeople who don't have that association already burned into their brain, it's a simple label that pretty clearly communicates the purpose of the feature -- much less scary-complicated-sounding than "contextual identities."
  - jgruen 10y ago
    Yes this, we did some brainstorming and solicited user feedback about names and decided Containers makes sense for a general audience. Docker Containers and 'Contextual Idendities' are kind of inside baseball.
    - cpeterso 10y ago
      Why not "Persona"? ;) I kid, but it makes sense. Containers describes the implementation, not the user experience or benefit. (Reusing the name "Persona" for any new project is a running joke at Mozilla. :)
      - nachtigall 10y ago
        > Containers describes the implementation, not the user experience or benefit. This. Sure, "contextual identities" sounds too academic, but who knows, maybe Containers (as a word) will become as ubiquious as Tabs are today (very common word in German today): Hey, dude, open a container ;)
      - Pxtl 10y ago
        I like persona too, or facade, or anything else that shows this is about what you present to the world... but most users won't think of it that way. Theyll think of it a keeping a bunch of sites in a box. They don't think about how the internet sees them, only how they see the internet.
        grimgrin 10y ago
        "Persona" was a jest towards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Persona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Persona
        Pxtl 10y ago
        I know, but it still works with the idea that a userprofile has multiple personas.
    - Pxtl 10y ago
      I'd have gone with "facades" or "partitions" personally, because I'm seeing it as the divisions of your identity. But I'm thinking to a user they don't think about how the site sees them, they think about how they see the site, and keep their set of sites in boxes.
    - sildur 10y ago
      I would have used "facets".
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      In other words, you found that deliberately misleading (and therefore attracting) a public that only knows "containers" as a buzzword was more important than reducing ambiguity in the technical world. Nice. Ya coulda used cans, bottles, flask, vat, pot, vessel, tub, ... etc, etc.
  - h2hn 10y ago
    if you're a technical person you don't associate containers with docker. That technology is much older than docker and even with that there're so many alternatives than docker is just one more.
JetSpiegel 10y ago
This seems like a reimplementation of Profiles, that you can use with `firefox -P`. The main issue here is one of UI. If you click a link in a PDF, what profile should the link be opened in? My take is that if you have multiple firefox instances it should ask you, otherwise it should just open on the only one open.
- bifurcation 10y ago
  The idea here is to be lighter-weight than profiles, or the similar feature in Chrome. I've got three different containers going right now, side-by-side in one browser window. In addition to the per-tab basis, providing separation within a profile also means you don't have to set your preferences, addons, etc. independently each time. For example, one of the major use cases for this sort of separation is being able to use multiple accounts on a site like Twitter or Facebook (which don't support multi-account) or Gmail (which does, but it's a bit rough). There's no reason I should have to have separate windows or separate addons for each of those accounts.
- wodenokoto 10y ago
  It's a simple UI version of Profiles. The choice of container is no more or no less complicated than the choice of profile for links in external programs (or within Firefox)
  - groovecoder 10y ago
    Just to be clear, this is NOT just a simple UI version of profiles. Containers only separate Cookies, localStorage, indexedDB, HTTP data cache, Image Cache (bug in progress), and other areas supported by originAttributes (See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project/Containers#What_is_.28and_isn.27t.29_separated_between_Containers https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec...) I.e., Containers do NOT protect against some lower-level privacy vulnerabilities like plugin enumeration or history-sniffing that are mitigated more by using entirely separate profiles.
vsviridov 10y ago
Containers are great. I've been using them for a bit. They definitely need a few things. Like an ability for the "new tab" to be sticky (if I'm in a container - new tab should open in the same container), and the ability to pick which container to open things in when the OS triggers the browser to open a URL. Right now it's very leaky... Say I start a registration process for a site in a container, they send a email confirmation, I click the link and it opens outside of the container, leaking the cookies. Bad for OPSEC.
- jgruen 10y ago
  Agreed. Right now we're pretty hands off about modifying default behaviors, link handling etc. Chalk this up to us wanting to be unopinionated about specific use cases, but there are definitely some optimizations to be made to shore up the situations you describe. Test Pilot is for WIP software, so don't be shy about filing issues.
  - Ar-Curunir 10y ago
    Would it be possible to have an add-on for this? One that automatically opens each website in a new container? That would allow default behaviour for most people, but for those that want isolation, it would be easy to get it.
    - cpeterso 10y ago
      There is a Contextual Identities API for WebExtensions shipping in Firefox 53: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/contextualIdentities https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/AP...
- tylerflick 10y ago
  They're great, but they seem to force me to change my workflow to work around them. If a FF PM is reading this: being able to register a domain for a container type would be a killer feature.
  - 10y ago
Sanddancer 10y ago
Is autocomplete also handled per container? There's an awful lot of privacy sensitive info that can be gleaned from there but it's not listed as being covered.
- oconnore 10y ago
  I don't think a website has access to your autocomplete unless you select one of them.
  - ponyous 10y ago
    Google has access when completing your query or wherever that autocomplete goes.
    - groovecoder 10y ago
      You can disable search engine suggestions in the Firefox Search preferences, if that's what you're worried about?
      - ponyous 10y ago
        I am not worried about anything I was just pointing out that there is still a potential problem. I understand that for knowledgeable users like average joe on hacker news is probably common sense to disable such features if he wants "full privacy". Anyways; it's not safe by default which should preferably be.
        kingstonTime 10y ago
        Firefox can autofill password fields if you choose to remember them yeah. There is a platform bug filed for making these container specific or choosing not to auto populate when they were saved in a container. The test pilot experiment is really to help us to figure out how people are using containers.
    - cpeterso 10y ago
option_greek 10y ago
Can't wait to say "Eat that gmail" (for annoyingly logging me into every other google property).
- groovecoder 10y ago
  This is the most satisfying experience I have so far using Containers. :)
tmccrmck 10y ago
Amazing. These types of changes are a step in the right for direction for Mozilla. I abandoned Firefox long ago for Chrome but now with containers, e10s, and Electrolysis I'm planning on moving back.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  I realize it's somewhat off-topic, but when on Android, I have found no better browser than Firefox because of extensions. uBlock Origin is indispensable if you don't want to root your device.
  - wodenokoto 10y ago
    I don't use extensions and still find Firefox better than Chrome on Android. It is a really good browser.
  - smichel17 10y ago
    Check out DNS66 on f-droid.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Aren't e10s and Electrolysis two different names for the same thing? In any case, if you wanted to add a third item to your list, I'd recommend Quantum: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    > Aren't e10s and Electrolysis two different names for the same thing? Yes. e10s is short for E-lectrolysi-s. :)
    - tmccrmck 10y ago
      Woops! I meant Quantum.
      - 10y ago
moondev 10y ago
I really love this. Will be a very easy way to keep gmail, aws accounts etc separate. Awesome idea. No more temp incognito tabs!!!
webwanderings 10y ago
How is this different from Profiles?
- jgruen 10y ago
  Containers are per-tab and isolate only tracking-related data (not bookmarks or history, for now). Also containers don't require that you open multiple instances of Firefox.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  Similar idea to profiles except you can open multiple container tabs in the same window and they share the same Firefox settings and extensions.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  Less isolation (e.g. extensions are shared between containers, and so are some other things), and works in the same window.
cpeterso 10y ago
The UI/UX for container tabs will be a difficult design challenge. How do you explain to typical users what a contextual identity is and why/when they might want to use one? I think per-window contextual identities, instead of per-tab, might be a good mental model. It's easy to explain to users that tabs in different windows can't see the same cookies. This is a generalization of Private Browsing window's throwaway context identities today. It's harder to explain that some tabs in the window are in the "Shopping" container and others in the "Personal" container.
- groovecoder 10y ago
  Great feedback. A segment of people seem do correlate windows with containers more easily than tabs. We are measuring both window & tab usage in the experiment to get a quantitative sense for it too. I personally use Tab Groups add-on and associate each of my tab groups with a container, but I also mix my containers in a certain group. E.g., sometimes I'm on hacker news for fun, and sometimes I'm here for work. ;)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
drdaeman 10y ago
The section "How does the Test Pilot experiment differ from Containers in Nightly?" isn't really clear. It doesn't explain what Nightly (and Developer Edition) users should expect to what they use (if they're not willing to jump to Test Pilot). Are container tabs are being moved out of the browser core to the Test Pilot walled-garden extension store? Or Test Pilot extension is just enabler and all the stuff is still in the core? Or core is becoming chromeless/API-only and extension does the UI? Or both systems are going to be developed in parallel (or maybe Test Pilot is fast-ring and built-in stuff is a snapshot of whatever looks stable at relase time)? Or is it something else?
- callahad 10y ago
  All of the machinery is in core, and will stay there (much of it is also depended on by the Tor uplift project's first party isolation features). This Test Pilot experiment is predominately about iterating on the UI. Test Pilot isn't a "walled garden extension store." It's just a bunch of normal Firefox add-ons that are authored by Mozilla and happen to be explicitly experimental / ephemeral.
  - kingstonTime 10y ago
    Yeah Test Pilot just is there to help us gather more data on how people use Containers so we can shape it's future. Lots of people are asking for features and we would like to concentrate on the ones that users would like. Containers are indeed internal to the browser using origin attributes which are a platform feature. We have opened this up to extension authors also in WebExtensions so they can play with ideas also.
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      Thanks. Good to know containers are in the core. Telemetry isn't an issue. If anything, it can be fully disabled. And yours is done right - all the data sent is properly described and observable. (Although it would be cool if there'd be a helper "let me decide later" mode when I can let browser collect data for a short while, get notified to review it, and then decide whenever it contains anything I consider sensitive or not...) Maybe this is silly and irrational, but... While it's all your work (and thank you for this!) and decision, it just somehow doesn't feel right that an locally-installed software - no matter how experimental - is ephemeral, almost like it's not a software but a service. With normal AMO addons - even the experimental ones - I can browse the version history and roll back if something's not right. Test Pilot feels like end-user is completely out of control of whatever happens (unless they don't participate and just install from Git repos).
CommanderData 10y ago
i love this brilliant idea, i have always needed something like this and as substitute i've been using two browsers.
eliaspro 10y ago
Is there any chance those could be synced with KDE Plasma's Activities (which implements a quite similar concept on the DE level)? The biggest issue with using Activities has always been that browsers know nothing about them, so when clicking a link in any application, it was opened in the most recently active browser window - no matter which activity it was on. So ideally there'd be a way to have Firefox simply inherit KDE Plasma's Activities as Containers, so one wouldn't have to maintain and somehow map Activities/Containers for both at the same time.
- groovecoder 10y ago
  That's a neat idea. Is there a bug for it in bugzilla?
mozillian2017 10y ago
People interested in this may also like this add-on, which I've been using for years: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/private-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/private-tab/ It lets you open private tabs in the same window as regular tabs.
amluto 10y ago
IMO it would be awesome if we could configure a few privacy-related settings per container. For example, enabling first-party isolation for Shopping would be great. And creating a container that forgets cookies after a very short timeout (kind of like private browsing) would be nice, too.
- groovecoder 10y ago
  Independent of Containers in test pilot, we are planning to do a shield study with variations of privacy-related settings toggled for users, then measure and ask users how their web experience worked. The goal is to find improved privacy related settings that don't break the web for people.
- TheGrassyKnoll 10y ago
  SnapCookies ?
remx 10y ago
From the post: > How will users know what context they are operating in? I find that themes are great for knowing what context I'm in, like the Totem mechanism in Inception. I'm not sure if we can have a different theme for each container though.
- groovecoder 10y ago
  Another good idea. I filed an issue in the repo for this. Add +1's here: https://github.com/mozilla/testpilot-containers/issues/343 https://github.com/mozilla/testpilot-containers/issues/343

199 points by groovecoder 10y ago

I do find the name – "containers" – a bit confusing. "Contextual identities" would seem like a better fit, because that's what it will be used for. I am reading this name also on other places, surprised Mozilla sticked with "containers": * https://blog.mozilla.org/tanvi/2016/06/16/contextual-identities-on-the-web/ https://blog.mozilla.org/tanvi/2016/06/16/contextual-identit... * https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec... * https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project/Containers https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec...

smacktoward 10y ago
It's only confusing if you're a technical person -- the sort of person who hears "containers" and thinks "oh, Docker." For laypeople who don't have that association already burned into their brain, it's a simple label that pretty clearly communicates the purpose of the feature -- much less scary-complicated-sounding than "contextual identities."
- jgruen 10y ago
  Yes this, we did some brainstorming and solicited user feedback about names and decided Containers makes sense for a general audience. Docker Containers and 'Contextual Idendities' are kind of inside baseball.
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    Why not "Persona"? ;) I kid, but it makes sense. Containers describes the implementation, not the user experience or benefit. (Reusing the name "Persona" for any new project is a running joke at Mozilla. :)
    - nachtigall 10y ago
      > Containers describes the implementation, not the user experience or benefit. This. Sure, "contextual identities" sounds too academic, but who knows, maybe Containers (as a word) will become as ubiquious as Tabs are today (very common word in German today): Hey, dude, open a container ;)
    - Pxtl 10y ago
      I like persona too, or facade, or anything else that shows this is about what you present to the world... but most users won't think of it that way. Theyll think of it a keeping a bunch of sites in a box. They don't think about how the internet sees them, only how they see the internet.
      - grimgrin 10y ago
        "Persona" was a jest towards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Persona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Persona
        Pxtl 10y ago
        I know, but it still works with the idea that a userprofile has multiple personas.
  - Pxtl 10y ago
    I'd have gone with "facades" or "partitions" personally, because I'm seeing it as the divisions of your identity. But I'm thinking to a user they don't think about how the site sees them, they think about how they see the site, and keep their set of sites in boxes.
  - sildur 10y ago
    I would have used "facets".
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    In other words, you found that deliberately misleading (and therefore attracting) a public that only knows "containers" as a buzzword was more important than reducing ambiguity in the technical world. Nice. Ya coulda used cans, bottles, flask, vat, pot, vessel, tub, ... etc, etc.
- h2hn 10y ago
  if you're a technical person you don't associate containers with docker. That technology is much older than docker and even with that there're so many alternatives than docker is just one more.

JetSpiegel 10y ago

This seems like a reimplementation of Profiles, that you can use with `firefox -P`. The main issue here is one of UI. If you click a link in a PDF, what profile should the link be opened in? My take is that if you have multiple firefox instances it should ask you, otherwise it should just open on the only one open.

bifurcation 10y ago
The idea here is to be lighter-weight than profiles, or the similar feature in Chrome. I've got three different containers going right now, side-by-side in one browser window. In addition to the per-tab basis, providing separation within a profile also means you don't have to set your preferences, addons, etc. independently each time. For example, one of the major use cases for this sort of separation is being able to use multiple accounts on a site like Twitter or Facebook (which don't support multi-account) or Gmail (which does, but it's a bit rough). There's no reason I should have to have separate windows or separate addons for each of those accounts.
wodenokoto 10y ago
It's a simple UI version of Profiles. The choice of container is no more or no less complicated than the choice of profile for links in external programs (or within Firefox)
- groovecoder 10y ago
  Just to be clear, this is NOT just a simple UI version of profiles. Containers only separate Cookies, localStorage, indexedDB, HTTP data cache, Image Cache (bug in progress), and other areas supported by originAttributes (See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project/Containers#What_is_.28and_isn.27t.29_separated_between_Containers https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec...) I.e., Containers do NOT protect against some lower-level privacy vulnerabilities like plugin enumeration or history-sniffing that are mitigated more by using entirely separate profiles.

vsviridov 10y ago

Containers are great. I've been using them for a bit. They definitely need a few things. Like an ability for the "new tab" to be sticky (if I'm in a container - new tab should open in the same container), and the ability to pick which container to open things in when the OS triggers the browser to open a URL. Right now it's very leaky... Say I start a registration process for a site in a container, they send a email confirmation, I click the link and it opens outside of the container, leaking the cookies. Bad for OPSEC.

jgruen 10y ago
Agreed. Right now we're pretty hands off about modifying default behaviors, link handling etc. Chalk this up to us wanting to be unopinionated about specific use cases, but there are definitely some optimizations to be made to shore up the situations you describe. Test Pilot is for WIP software, so don't be shy about filing issues.
- Ar-Curunir 10y ago
  Would it be possible to have an add-on for this? One that automatically opens each website in a new container? That would allow default behaviour for most people, but for those that want isolation, it would be easy to get it.
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    There is a Contextual Identities API for WebExtensions shipping in Firefox 53: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/contextualIdentities https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/AP...
tylerflick 10y ago
They're great, but they seem to force me to change my workflow to work around them. If a FF PM is reading this: being able to register a domain for a container type would be a killer feature.
- 10y ago

Sanddancer 10y ago

Is autocomplete also handled per container? There's an awful lot of privacy sensitive info that can be gleaned from there but it's not listed as being covered.

oconnore 10y ago
I don't think a website has access to your autocomplete unless you select one of them.
- ponyous 10y ago
  Google has access when completing your query or wherever that autocomplete goes.
  - groovecoder 10y ago
    You can disable search engine suggestions in the Firefox Search preferences, if that's what you're worried about?
    - ponyous 10y ago
      I am not worried about anything I was just pointing out that there is still a potential problem. I understand that for knowledgeable users like average joe on hacker news is probably common sense to disable such features if he wants "full privacy". Anyways; it's not safe by default which should preferably be.
      - kingstonTime 10y ago
        Firefox can autofill password fields if you choose to remember them yeah. There is a platform bug filed for making these container specific or choosing not to auto populate when they were saved in a container. The test pilot experiment is really to help us to figure out how people are using containers.
  - cpeterso 10y ago

option_greek 10y ago

Can't wait to say "Eat that gmail" (for annoyingly logging me into every other google property).

groovecoder 10y ago
This is the most satisfying experience I have so far using Containers. :)

tmccrmck 10y ago

Amazing. These types of changes are a step in the right for direction for Mozilla. I abandoned Firefox long ago for Chrome but now with containers, e10s, and Electrolysis I'm planning on moving back.

narrowrail 10y ago
I realize it's somewhat off-topic, but when on Android, I have found no better browser than Firefox because of extensions. uBlock Origin is indispensable if you don't want to root your device.
- wodenokoto 10y ago
  I don't use extensions and still find Firefox better than Chrome on Android. It is a really good browser.
- smichel17 10y ago
  Check out DNS66 on f-droid.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
Aren't e10s and Electrolysis two different names for the same thing? In any case, if you wanted to add a third item to your list, I'd recommend Quantum: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum
- cpeterso 10y ago
  > Aren't e10s and Electrolysis two different names for the same thing? Yes. e10s is short for E-lectrolysi-s. :)
  - tmccrmck 10y ago
    Woops! I meant Quantum.
    - 10y ago

moondev 10y ago

I really love this. Will be a very easy way to keep gmail, aws accounts etc separate. Awesome idea. No more temp incognito tabs!!!

webwanderings 10y ago

How is this different from Profiles?

jgruen 10y ago
Containers are per-tab and isolate only tracking-related data (not bookmarks or history, for now). Also containers don't require that you open multiple instances of Firefox.
cpeterso 10y ago
Similar idea to profiles except you can open multiple container tabs in the same window and they share the same Firefox settings and extensions.
drdaeman 10y ago
Less isolation (e.g. extensions are shared between containers, and so are some other things), and works in the same window.

cpeterso 10y ago

The UI/UX for container tabs will be a difficult design challenge. How do you explain to typical users what a contextual identity is and why/when they might want to use one? I think per-window contextual identities, instead of per-tab, might be a good mental model. It's easy to explain to users that tabs in different windows can't see the same cookies. This is a generalization of Private Browsing window's throwaway context identities today. It's harder to explain that some tabs in the window are in the "Shopping" container and others in the "Personal" container.

groovecoder 10y ago
Great feedback. A segment of people seem do correlate windows with containers more easily than tabs. We are measuring both window & tab usage in the experiment to get a quantitative sense for it too. I personally use Tab Groups add-on and associate each of my tab groups with a container, but I also mix my containers in a certain group. E.g., sometimes I'm on hacker news for fun, and sometimes I'm here for work. ;)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

drdaeman 10y ago

The section "How does the Test Pilot experiment differ from Containers in Nightly?" isn't really clear. It doesn't explain what Nightly (and Developer Edition) users should expect to what they use (if they're not willing to jump to Test Pilot). Are container tabs are being moved out of the browser core to the Test Pilot walled-garden extension store? Or Test Pilot extension is just enabler and all the stuff is still in the core? Or core is becoming chromeless/API-only and extension does the UI? Or both systems are going to be developed in parallel (or maybe Test Pilot is fast-ring and built-in stuff is a snapshot of whatever looks stable at relase time)? Or is it something else?

callahad 10y ago
All of the machinery is in core, and will stay there (much of it is also depended on by the Tor uplift project's first party isolation features). This Test Pilot experiment is predominately about iterating on the UI. Test Pilot isn't a "walled garden extension store." It's just a bunch of normal Firefox add-ons that are authored by Mozilla and happen to be explicitly experimental / ephemeral.
- kingstonTime 10y ago
  Yeah Test Pilot just is there to help us gather more data on how people use Containers so we can shape it's future. Lots of people are asking for features and we would like to concentrate on the ones that users would like. Containers are indeed internal to the browser using origin attributes which are a platform feature. We have opened this up to extension authors also in WebExtensions so they can play with ideas also.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Thanks. Good to know containers are in the core. Telemetry isn't an issue. If anything, it can be fully disabled. And yours is done right - all the data sent is properly described and observable. (Although it would be cool if there'd be a helper "let me decide later" mode when I can let browser collect data for a short while, get notified to review it, and then decide whenever it contains anything I consider sensitive or not...) Maybe this is silly and irrational, but... While it's all your work (and thank you for this!) and decision, it just somehow doesn't feel right that an locally-installed software - no matter how experimental - is ephemeral, almost like it's not a software but a service. With normal AMO addons - even the experimental ones - I can browse the version history and roll back if something's not right. Test Pilot feels like end-user is completely out of control of whatever happens (unless they don't participate and just install from Git repos).

CommanderData 10y ago

i love this brilliant idea, i have always needed something like this and as substitute i've been using two browsers.

eliaspro 10y ago

Is there any chance those could be synced with KDE Plasma's Activities (which implements a quite similar concept on the DE level)? The biggest issue with using Activities has always been that browsers know nothing about them, so when clicking a link in any application, it was opened in the most recently active browser window - no matter which activity it was on. So ideally there'd be a way to have Firefox simply inherit KDE Plasma's Activities as Containers, so one wouldn't have to maintain and somehow map Activities/Containers for both at the same time.

groovecoder 10y ago
That's a neat idea. Is there a bug for it in bugzilla?

mozillian2017 10y ago

People interested in this may also like this add-on, which I've been using for years: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/private-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/private-tab/ It lets you open private tabs in the same window as regular tabs.

amluto 10y ago

IMO it would be awesome if we could configure a few privacy-related settings per container. For example, enabling first-party isolation for Shopping would be great. And creating a container that forgets cookies after a very short timeout (kind of like private browsing) would be nice, too.

groovecoder 10y ago
Independent of Containers in test pilot, we are planning to do a shield study with variations of privacy-related settings toggled for users, then measure and ask users how their web experience worked. The goal is to find improved privacy related settings that don't break the web for people.
TheGrassyKnoll 10y ago
SnapCookies ?

remx 10y ago

From the post: > How will users know what context they are operating in? I find that themes are great for knowing what context I'm in, like the Totem mechanism in Inception. I'm not sure if we can have a different theme for each container though.

groovecoder 10y ago
Another good idea. I filed an issue in the repo for this. Add +1's here: https://github.com/mozilla/testpilot-containers/issues/343 https://github.com/mozilla/testpilot-containers/issues/343