4 ms·

What things about Firefox are not user friendly? I'm genuinely asking, I'm not defending Firefox. The only one I know of is that you have to go to about:config

by sandov 8y ago

What things about Firefox are not user friendly? I'm genuinely asking, I'm not defending Firefox. The only one I know of is that you have to go to about:config to disable Javascript.

duskwuff 8y ago
> The only one I know of is that you have to go to about:config to disable Javascript. And I frankly don't see any problem with that. The modern Web requires Javascript. Most major web sites will fail to work properly without it, often in confusing ways. (For example, Youtube will just display as a bunch of gray boxes.) Hiding a setting whose effect, for most users, is effectively to "break" the browser, is entirely appropriate.
- snazz 8y ago
  People who are genuinely serious about blocking JavaScript (like me, and I’m sure many others in the HN crowd) are happy to install NoScript, especially since it gives you much more fine-grained control than simply on/off. I agree that hiding it behind an about:config switch is perfectly fine, considering that there is rarely a legitimate reason to use the setting.
- Nicksil 8y ago
  > The modern Web requires Javascript. I disagree. There is nothing about the "modern" web which necessitates the use of JavaScript. I can understand the argument that, due to JavaScript's ubiquity, interfacing with some websites may prove impossible. But even then, that shortcoming isn't anything to do with the "modern" web; developers simply chose not to engineer a system capable of gracefully degrading.
  - jscholes 8y ago
    > > The modern Web requires Javascript. > I disagree. The argument was not that the modern web requires devs to over-rely on JavaScript, forsaking all others and creating experiences which fail to function without it. The argument was that for the majority of users to interact with the majority of modern websites, JavaScript is required to be turned on. Which it is.
    - Nicksil 8y ago
      I understood and addressed the argument in my initial reply. > ... for the majority of users to interact with the majority of modern websites, JavaScript is required to be turned on. This is a self-inflicted wound.
superkuh 8y ago
Pocket to start. Phoning home to check certs. Things like that. It's so bad guides have been featured on hackernews before, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16135875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16135875
- gruez 8y ago
  >Phoning home to check certs. You mean OCSP/CRL? Every browser does that.
superkuh 8y ago
Firefox is anti-user. It prevents users from controlling their own software. It uses a ineffective walled garden model where there's an automated system to submit all add-ons to to get them signed by moz. Then you are allowed to install them in "your" browser. The only work around is to use the buggy version embodied in the beta or dev (aurora formerly) versions.
- chronogram 8y ago
  Haha this one is funny! Maybe Mozilla is run by the illuminati and the open source thing is fake ;) Have you taken a step back and considered the reasons for the decisions? Or can the only reason be a shadow government?

by sandov 8y ago

What things about Firefox are not user friendly? I'm genuinely asking, I'm not defending Firefox. The only one I know of is that you have to go to about:config to disable Javascript.

duskwuff 8y ago

> The only one I know of is that you have to go to about:config to disable Javascript. And I frankly don't see any problem with that. The modern Web requires Javascript. Most major web sites will fail to work properly without it, often in confusing ways. (For example, Youtube will just display as a bunch of gray boxes.) Hiding a setting whose effect, for most users, is effectively to "break" the browser, is entirely appropriate.

snazz 8y ago
People who are genuinely serious about blocking JavaScript (like me, and I’m sure many others in the HN crowd) are happy to install NoScript, especially since it gives you much more fine-grained control than simply on/off. I agree that hiding it behind an about:config switch is perfectly fine, considering that there is rarely a legitimate reason to use the setting.
Nicksil 8y ago
> The modern Web requires Javascript. I disagree. There is nothing about the "modern" web which necessitates the use of JavaScript. I can understand the argument that, due to JavaScript's ubiquity, interfacing with some websites may prove impossible. But even then, that shortcoming isn't anything to do with the "modern" web; developers simply chose not to engineer a system capable of gracefully degrading.
- jscholes 8y ago
  > > The modern Web requires Javascript. > I disagree. The argument was not that the modern web requires devs to over-rely on JavaScript, forsaking all others and creating experiences which fail to function without it. The argument was that for the majority of users to interact with the majority of modern websites, JavaScript is required to be turned on. Which it is.
  - Nicksil 8y ago
    I understood and addressed the argument in my initial reply. > ... for the majority of users to interact with the majority of modern websites, JavaScript is required to be turned on. This is a self-inflicted wound.

superkuh 8y ago

Pocket to start. Phoning home to check certs. Things like that. It's so bad guides have been featured on hackernews before, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16135875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16135875

gruez 8y ago
>Phoning home to check certs. You mean OCSP/CRL? Every browser does that.

superkuh 8y ago

Firefox is anti-user. It prevents users from controlling their own software. It uses a ineffective walled garden model where there's an automated system to submit all add-ons to to get them signed by moz. Then you are allowed to install them in "your" browser. The only work around is to use the buggy version embodied in the beta or dev (aurora formerly) versions.

chronogram 8y ago
Haha this one is funny! Maybe Mozilla is run by the illuminati and the open source thing is fake ;) Have you taken a step back and considered the reasons for the decisions? Or can the only reason be a shadow government?