10 ms·

There's a great way to disable this and many other user-hostile features by going to https://www.mozilla.org/ https://www.mozilla.org/ and downloading Firefox.

There's a great way to disable this and many other user-hostile features by going to https://www.mozilla.org/ https://www.mozilla.org/ and downloading Firefox. Suddenly, you are no longer fighting your browser.

endymi0n 8y ago
While you're completely on the mark with this, I noticed that Google pulls the new Microsoft now that it has almost a quasi monopoly on the desktop: Most of the new, complex UIs by Google services (read: GCP Cloud Console, all of Google Marketing Platform) are slowing my Firefox to a grinding halt, often times even crashing the tab. No problems in Chrome whatsoever. It's the only thing I'm using Chrome for these days and I can't help shake the same ugly feeling than when I was forced using Internet Explorer for government websites purely because of their ActiveX plugins back in the days.
- c16 8y ago
  I've noticed this also. Gmail or anything by Google within Firefox is painful. Very very painful.
  - lostmyoldone 8y ago
    Read in another HN comment just the other day that the slowness was because they used some obsolete only-in-chrome shadow DOM API which "polyfilled" on all other browser, which if true sounds exactly like pulling a Microsoft. I haven't verified it myself and I couldn't find a reference with a quick search, so while it sounds plausible, it would be great to havd a credible source to refer to.
    - tumetab1 8y ago
      Some kind of reference https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18053935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18053935
    - the_duke 8y ago
      This is not necessarily malicious though. Probably some in-house framework they use that happens to use this old browser API. And they haven't gotten around to fixing it. Of course it's also reasonable that nobody is pushing a fix up because it works fine on Chrome and that's what Google wants us to use.
  - kannanvijayan 8y ago
    Just a heads up, but we are actively working on improving the situation here, and should have releases coming out that steadily and progressively improves the experience on this front. It is an area of major focus after the initial Quantum Flow effort, and we have technical fixes in many places in the pipeline to address this. (I work on the Javascript engine in Firefox, and improving our story here is one of my personal top priorities, as well as an organizational priority).
    - cptskippy 8y ago
      Are you saying that performance issues on Google properties are a bug in Firefox? The other posters were implying the issue was Google doing things to intentionally slow down performance in Firefox.
      - c16 8y ago
        Not stating Google is intentionally slowing down things - but I've noticed that Google products and only Google products are slow to render, slow to click into the search field of Google Maps, and when I press 'compose' within Gmail on a macbook pro 2017 I can wait easilly 10 seconds before the email bit pops up. Within Chrome however, quick and slick.
        cptskippy 8y ago
        Google has a history of disabling or degrading features (image search, maps, youtube) in browsers that aren't Chrome under the "we haven't fully tested them" excuse. In almost all cases changing your user agent to Chrome would result in a perfectly functional site. Perhaps there is 1 feature that didn't work but it was usually obscure and it feels like Google was just throwing the baby out with the bathwater to spite anyone not using Chrome. Up until recently it felt like Google made a Chrome version of their product and a lowest common denominator version and anyone that isn't using Chrome got the later. Now it seems like they let some browsers use the Chrome version but there are unusual performance regressions compared to Chrome. It's very reminiscent of the first browser wars where sites were IE or Netscape only. The whole point of standards push over the years was so that developers could just code to the standard and the browsers would either catch up or suffer the consequences. It seems like these days Google is dipping into Microsoft's old playbook for every trick it can find to get people to switch to Chrome.
  - squarefoot 8y ago
    I have a Gmail account since it was invite only and I believe also there wasn't any web interface yet so I always used it through a mail client such as Sylpheed, now Claws Mail (https://www.claws-mail.org/ https://www.claws-mail.org/). The very few times i had to use the web interface (always Firefox or derivatives) it worked without hitches on FF too, but a few months ago I was doing some maintenance to a customer PC (Debian+Firefox just like all my machines) and noticed how slow the Gmail web interface had become. Switching to the "old" mode helped somewhat to restore some speed, but being used to snappy dedicated mail client it still was truly slow to operate. Unfortunately today every non tech savy user thinks the browser is the internet to the point some don't even know what the word browser mean, which makes even more difficult to convince them to try anything else. Where a browser struggles with two pages of mails, I can keep available my entire archive since about 2001 on the Claws Mail client, that's over 50K mails in a dozen accounts, and query them to find whatever I need.
- sha666sum 8y ago
  I've ran into various comments around the internet/reddit that Google sites like Youtube are slower on Firefox, and that changing the user agent to Chrome fixes it.
  - squarefoot 8y ago
    No problems here: Waterfox plus usual privacy oriented addons then Hooktube replacing Youtube. Might seem excessive but works like charm. https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/ https://hooktube.com/ https://hooktube.com/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hooktube-redirector/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hooktube-redi...
    - fluffysandwich 8y ago
      Warning: Hooktube link is NSFW. 'Sensual massage' thumbnail on the frontpage...
      - squarefoot 8y ago
        Just checked, you're absolutely right! I always use the redirector addon rather than going to their homepage though and it has been SFW so far.
    - sjs382 8y ago
      Just a heads up—HookTube's homepage (at least for the moment?) is very NSFW.
    - squarefoot 8y ago
      To all, I can't edit anymore my post to delete it, so just forget about the hooktube address; as others reported it's definitely NSFW while the redirector Firefox addon is safe. I apologize for not checking it before.
- Paul-ish 8y ago
  I had compatibility issues when I tried to use TensorBoard the other day. It doesn't even seem like they were trying for compatibility in that case.
nadont8 8y ago
>Suddenly, you are no longer fighting your browser. I mean, if you're okay with Pocket showing you ads in your home page, your browsing data being sent to Cliqz, addons that publicise the "Mr Robot" TV show being installed without your consent, Mozilla pages that use Google Analytics scripts that cannot be blocked, then Firefox is a solid choice.
- hvis 8y ago
  None of that happens in the current Firefox releases.
  - nadont8 8y ago
    That's a lie. You are still shown Pocket ads and AMO still uses Google Analytics which cannot be blocked (extensions cannot run on addons.mozilla.org). About the rest: true, it's in the recent past, but Mozilla love to shoot themselves in the foot, so they will keep doing that kind of stuff.
    - hvis 8y ago
      I don't see any Pocket ads. As for analytics, they need to use something. And disallowing extensions to run on addons.mozilla.org is a solid technical decision. > but Mozilla love to shoot themselves in the foot As opposed to some other influential tech company which always does the right thing?
- teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
  An addon that is not enabled by default, doesn't reference what it's supposed to be "advertising", and will only do anything once going to a specific page after it's already been enabled doesn't seem like a very good advertisement.
chx 8y ago
Except they wiped clear their extension "store" semi-recently and there are still things I need which do not exist. Every time there's a flareup of "Chrome is evil" I take a look, and then close Firefox with "still not for me".

endymi0n 8y ago

While you're completely on the mark with this, I noticed that Google pulls the new Microsoft now that it has almost a quasi monopoly on the desktop: Most of the new, complex UIs by Google services (read: GCP Cloud Console, all of Google Marketing Platform) are slowing my Firefox to a grinding halt, often times even crashing the tab. No problems in Chrome whatsoever. It's the only thing I'm using Chrome for these days and I can't help shake the same ugly feeling than when I was forced using Internet Explorer for government websites purely because of their ActiveX plugins back in the days.

c16 8y ago
I've noticed this also. Gmail or anything by Google within Firefox is painful. Very very painful.
- lostmyoldone 8y ago
  Read in another HN comment just the other day that the slowness was because they used some obsolete only-in-chrome shadow DOM API which "polyfilled" on all other browser, which if true sounds exactly like pulling a Microsoft. I haven't verified it myself and I couldn't find a reference with a quick search, so while it sounds plausible, it would be great to havd a credible source to refer to.
  - tumetab1 8y ago
    Some kind of reference https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18053935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18053935
  - the_duke 8y ago
    This is not necessarily malicious though. Probably some in-house framework they use that happens to use this old browser API. And they haven't gotten around to fixing it. Of course it's also reasonable that nobody is pushing a fix up because it works fine on Chrome and that's what Google wants us to use.
- kannanvijayan 8y ago
  Just a heads up, but we are actively working on improving the situation here, and should have releases coming out that steadily and progressively improves the experience on this front. It is an area of major focus after the initial Quantum Flow effort, and we have technical fixes in many places in the pipeline to address this. (I work on the Javascript engine in Firefox, and improving our story here is one of my personal top priorities, as well as an organizational priority).
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    Are you saying that performance issues on Google properties are a bug in Firefox? The other posters were implying the issue was Google doing things to intentionally slow down performance in Firefox.
    - c16 8y ago
      Not stating Google is intentionally slowing down things - but I've noticed that Google products and only Google products are slow to render, slow to click into the search field of Google Maps, and when I press 'compose' within Gmail on a macbook pro 2017 I can wait easilly 10 seconds before the email bit pops up. Within Chrome however, quick and slick.
      - cptskippy 8y ago
        Google has a history of disabling or degrading features (image search, maps, youtube) in browsers that aren't Chrome under the "we haven't fully tested them" excuse. In almost all cases changing your user agent to Chrome would result in a perfectly functional site. Perhaps there is 1 feature that didn't work but it was usually obscure and it feels like Google was just throwing the baby out with the bathwater to spite anyone not using Chrome. Up until recently it felt like Google made a Chrome version of their product and a lowest common denominator version and anyone that isn't using Chrome got the later. Now it seems like they let some browsers use the Chrome version but there are unusual performance regressions compared to Chrome. It's very reminiscent of the first browser wars where sites were IE or Netscape only. The whole point of standards push over the years was so that developers could just code to the standard and the browsers would either catch up or suffer the consequences. It seems like these days Google is dipping into Microsoft's old playbook for every trick it can find to get people to switch to Chrome.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  I have a Gmail account since it was invite only and I believe also there wasn't any web interface yet so I always used it through a mail client such as Sylpheed, now Claws Mail (https://www.claws-mail.org/ https://www.claws-mail.org/). The very few times i had to use the web interface (always Firefox or derivatives) it worked without hitches on FF too, but a few months ago I was doing some maintenance to a customer PC (Debian+Firefox just like all my machines) and noticed how slow the Gmail web interface had become. Switching to the "old" mode helped somewhat to restore some speed, but being used to snappy dedicated mail client it still was truly slow to operate. Unfortunately today every non tech savy user thinks the browser is the internet to the point some don't even know what the word browser mean, which makes even more difficult to convince them to try anything else. Where a browser struggles with two pages of mails, I can keep available my entire archive since about 2001 on the Claws Mail client, that's over 50K mails in a dozen accounts, and query them to find whatever I need.
sha666sum 8y ago
I've ran into various comments around the internet/reddit that Google sites like Youtube are slower on Firefox, and that changing the user agent to Chrome fixes it.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  No problems here: Waterfox plus usual privacy oriented addons then Hooktube replacing Youtube. Might seem excessive but works like charm. https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/ https://hooktube.com/ https://hooktube.com/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hooktube-redirector/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hooktube-redi...
  - fluffysandwich 8y ago
    Warning: Hooktube link is NSFW. 'Sensual massage' thumbnail on the frontpage...
    - squarefoot 8y ago
      Just checked, you're absolutely right! I always use the redirector addon rather than going to their homepage though and it has been SFW so far.
  - sjs382 8y ago
    Just a heads up—HookTube's homepage (at least for the moment?) is very NSFW.
  - squarefoot 8y ago
    To all, I can't edit anymore my post to delete it, so just forget about the hooktube address; as others reported it's definitely NSFW while the redirector Firefox addon is safe. I apologize for not checking it before.
Paul-ish 8y ago
I had compatibility issues when I tried to use TensorBoard the other day. It doesn't even seem like they were trying for compatibility in that case.

nadont8 8y ago

>Suddenly, you are no longer fighting your browser. I mean, if you're okay with Pocket showing you ads in your home page, your browsing data being sent to Cliqz, addons that publicise the "Mr Robot" TV show being installed without your consent, Mozilla pages that use Google Analytics scripts that cannot be blocked, then Firefox is a solid choice.

hvis 8y ago
None of that happens in the current Firefox releases.
- nadont8 8y ago
  That's a lie. You are still shown Pocket ads and AMO still uses Google Analytics which cannot be blocked (extensions cannot run on addons.mozilla.org). About the rest: true, it's in the recent past, but Mozilla love to shoot themselves in the foot, so they will keep doing that kind of stuff.
  - hvis 8y ago
    I don't see any Pocket ads. As for analytics, they need to use something. And disallowing extensions to run on addons.mozilla.org is a solid technical decision. > but Mozilla love to shoot themselves in the foot As opposed to some other influential tech company which always does the right thing?
teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
An addon that is not enabled by default, doesn't reference what it's supposed to be "advertising", and will only do anything once going to a specific page after it's already been enabled doesn't seem like a very good advertisement.

chx 8y ago

Except they wiped clear their extension "store" semi-recently and there are still things I need which do not exist. Every time there's a flareup of "Chrome is evil" I take a look, and then close Firefox with "still not for me".