6 ms·

I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvem

by jmstfv 7y ago

I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video). I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44872 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44872

qxnqd 7y ago
Try Safari and/or Brave
- skunkpocalypse 7y ago
  Brave is Chrome(ium)
- jmstfv 7y ago
  I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.
  - qxnqd 7y ago
    Then go with Brave. They stripped out the Google bits, and they won't remove support for the current uBlock Origin ad blocker.
    - delosII 7y ago
      Plus,[0]Brave is going to block [1]CNAME Cloaking first-party trackers, AFAIK no other browser, not[2]add-on, has or plan to have such blocking capabilities. [0] https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21604825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21604825 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698
      - y4mi 7y ago
        It also sells your eyeballs by allowing certain adds after they've been paid. It's basically racketeering. If you're keen on using chromium with manifest v2 add-ons, Vivaldi and Microsoft edge are both options to keep in mind.
        qxnqd 7y ago
        That is opt-in. Edge hasn't been released yet. Vivaldi UI is a buggy and slow mess (I invite you to try it yourself)
        frosted-flakes 7y ago
        Edge-ium is about to be released. It's very stable. I've been using the preview for months.
        garraeth 7y ago
        I use Vivaldi alongside Chrome for dev, and from that perspective (for the other devs here on HN) they seem like clones of each other. Both running the same JS engine and dev tools.
        delosII 7y ago
        Brave won't be affected by manifest v3 though https://twitter.com/brave/status/1088914000379731970 https://twitter.com/brave/status/1088914000379731970
      - thefreeman 7y ago
        the [2] link states that ublock origin in firefox already supports this. did you even read it or just copy paste from someone elses brave fanboy comment.
        delosII 7y ago
        Snarky comment aside, I'd suggest you to re-read my post, i specifically wrote "not add-on"
    - aledthemathguy 7y ago
      Just curious: why would I need ublock origin if I am using Brave (which is already blocking ads)? Thx
      - qxnqd 7y ago
        I use it because I've written many filters for my favourite websites. Also you can use lists which can block even more things. In my case I've blocked all social network bullshit, including icons, share buttons, widgets, etc
    - scholia 7y ago
      Why Brave rather than the Epic Privacy Browser? (They are both based on Chromium....)
      - robbrown451 7y ago
        Because Epic is purely "private browsing" a.k.a. constant "porn mode." Painful to use at sites you want to remember you.
  - thejohnconway 7y ago
    But Safari still supports extensions, surely? I’m using it with extensions, there are not stories I can see about them removing support, and their Développement pages are still up.
    - tyingq 7y ago
      Their apis only support declarative static blocking lists. No heuristics, right click to block, IAB ad size detection, etc. Similar to what chrome plans to do with manifest v3. Advertisers are already figuring out how to get around that. CNAME cloacking, proxying with same domain, etc.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        But on the other hand, it prevents malicious extensions from exfiltrating your browsing data.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        Karunamon 7y ago
        A powered off computer is completely unhackable. This idea of removing usability in the name of safety has gone way, way too far. It was crap when Mozilla did it, it's crap when Apple does it.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        Privacy is half the point of an ad blocker. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to enforce privacy constraints on something that ostensibly protects your privacy.
        tyingq 7y ago
        Given that both Safari and Chrome will continue to allow extensions to inject arbitrary JavaScript into any web page, I don't buy the privacy angle.
  - sparkywolf 7y ago
    Literally the day Firefox finds the way to be able to use all my passwords in keychain/suggest and generate new ones, I'm switching to it full time. I loved safari, but killing extensions is crossing a line.
    - digitarald 7y ago
      Password generation landed in 69, right? Latest on Keychain sopport is in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106400#c130 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106400#c130 as WONTFIX due to macOS changes.
      - sparkywolf 7y ago
        Still holding out hope. I'll have to look into the suggestions again then! Maybe I could figure out a way to migrate keychain
  - jacobmoe 7y ago
    I'm loving pihole https://pi-hole.net/ https://pi-hole.net/
    - msla 7y ago
      Pi Hole is a good first layer, but good sites occasionally have bad shit on them, so you can't rely entirely on host-based blocking.
      - dual_basis 7y ago
        But they rarely host the bad shit themselves, so it still is easily blockable.
leeoniya 7y ago
that bug is closed as dupe of [1] which is marked fixed, though it's not clear to me whether the fix was to implement a flag that enables proper rendering or to do it properly by default. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=667431 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=667431
mrpopo 7y ago
The comments from noel@chromium.org in this bug report are scary. "We're not doing as the spec tells us to, BUT that probably gives us performance gains, most users don't care about it anyway, I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead (!?)..." Why so much resistance?
- Izkata 7y ago
  > most users don't care about it anyway Our designer was pissed off when we discovered this bug, which explained why Chrome was the only program that displayed RGB values differently from all the others (not just browsers). She'd been careful about standardizing and tweaking colors we already used to work better for people with colorblindness, much of which was thrown out the window on Chrome. Not to mention issues matching the PNGs and SVGs she created for the site. Quick edit: > Why so much resistance? Comment 34: > Chromium developers have previously stated this won't be supported for reasons mentioned in this old post. > https://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/ https://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/ From that link (posted in 2006): > The big hurdle that we ran into, though, was with the drawing we did not control, namely the Flash plug-in. The problem is that designers specify colors in Flash and colors in CSS in the Web page, and they expect those colors to match. Because Flash’s drawing isn’t correcting to sRGB, if we did it in Safari, there would be color mismatches all over the place. These mismatches look far worse than if we just don’t correct at all. Isn't Flash gone from Chrom(ium) now?
  - Proven 7y ago
    It's not gone but it's going away 3 weeks from now. It's disabled but you can enable it. This is based on my experience with Chromium (I don't use Chrome.)
- Kovah 7y ago
  > I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead Wow. Just wow. I have rarely seen so much ignorance. And this exactly why Chrome is cancer for the whole internet. I mean, seriously, why should the web developers fix something that is standardized just to make it work in Chrome? And fixing the JPEG standard...?
theandrewbailey 7y ago
I started using Firefox in 2004, and never stopped using it as a main driver since.
- fastball 7y ago
  Uhm. Is that somehow relevant to OC's comment?

by jmstfv 7y ago

qxnqd 7y ago

Try Safari and/or Brave

skunkpocalypse 7y ago
Brave is Chrome(ium)
jmstfv 7y ago
I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.
- qxnqd 7y ago
  Then go with Brave. They stripped out the Google bits, and they won't remove support for the current uBlock Origin ad blocker.
  - delosII 7y ago
    Plus,[0]Brave is going to block [1]CNAME Cloaking first-party trackers, AFAIK no other browser, not[2]add-on, has or plan to have such blocking capabilities. [0] https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21604825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21604825 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698
    - y4mi 7y ago
      It also sells your eyeballs by allowing certain adds after they've been paid. It's basically racketeering. If you're keen on using chromium with manifest v2 add-ons, Vivaldi and Microsoft edge are both options to keep in mind.
      - qxnqd 7y ago
        That is opt-in. Edge hasn't been released yet. Vivaldi UI is a buggy and slow mess (I invite you to try it yourself)
        frosted-flakes 7y ago
        Edge-ium is about to be released. It's very stable. I've been using the preview for months.
        garraeth 7y ago
        I use Vivaldi alongside Chrome for dev, and from that perspective (for the other devs here on HN) they seem like clones of each other. Both running the same JS engine and dev tools.
      - delosII 7y ago
        Brave won't be affected by manifest v3 though https://twitter.com/brave/status/1088914000379731970 https://twitter.com/brave/status/1088914000379731970
    - thefreeman 7y ago
      the [2] link states that ublock origin in firefox already supports this. did you even read it or just copy paste from someone elses brave fanboy comment.
      - delosII 7y ago
        Snarky comment aside, I'd suggest you to re-read my post, i specifically wrote "not add-on"
  - aledthemathguy 7y ago
    Just curious: why would I need ublock origin if I am using Brave (which is already blocking ads)? Thx
    - qxnqd 7y ago
      I use it because I've written many filters for my favourite websites. Also you can use lists which can block even more things. In my case I've blocked all social network bullshit, including icons, share buttons, widgets, etc
  - scholia 7y ago
    Why Brave rather than the Epic Privacy Browser? (They are both based on Chromium....)
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      Because Epic is purely "private browsing" a.k.a. constant "porn mode." Painful to use at sites you want to remember you.
- thejohnconway 7y ago
  But Safari still supports extensions, surely? I’m using it with extensions, there are not stories I can see about them removing support, and their Développement pages are still up.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    Their apis only support declarative static blocking lists. No heuristics, right click to block, IAB ad size detection, etc. Similar to what chrome plans to do with manifest v3. Advertisers are already figuring out how to get around that. CNAME cloacking, proxying with same domain, etc.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      But on the other hand, it prevents malicious extensions from exfiltrating your browsing data.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Karunamon 7y ago
        A powered off computer is completely unhackable. This idea of removing usability in the name of safety has gone way, way too far. It was crap when Mozilla did it, it's crap when Apple does it.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        Privacy is half the point of an ad blocker. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to enforce privacy constraints on something that ostensibly protects your privacy.
        tyingq 7y ago
        Given that both Safari and Chrome will continue to allow extensions to inject arbitrary JavaScript into any web page, I don't buy the privacy angle.
- sparkywolf 7y ago
  Literally the day Firefox finds the way to be able to use all my passwords in keychain/suggest and generate new ones, I'm switching to it full time. I loved safari, but killing extensions is crossing a line.
  - digitarald 7y ago
    Password generation landed in 69, right? Latest on Keychain sopport is in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106400#c130 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106400#c130 as WONTFIX due to macOS changes.
    - sparkywolf 7y ago
      Still holding out hope. I'll have to look into the suggestions again then! Maybe I could figure out a way to migrate keychain
- jacobmoe 7y ago
  I'm loving pihole https://pi-hole.net/ https://pi-hole.net/
  - msla 7y ago
    Pi Hole is a good first layer, but good sites occasionally have bad shit on them, so you can't rely entirely on host-based blocking.
    - dual_basis 7y ago
      But they rarely host the bad shit themselves, so it still is easily blockable.

leeoniya 7y ago

that bug is closed as dupe of [1] which is marked fixed, though it's not clear to me whether the fix was to implement a flag that enables proper rendering or to do it properly by default. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=667431 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=667431

mrpopo 7y ago

The comments from noel@chromium.org in this bug report are scary. "We're not doing as the spec tells us to, BUT that probably gives us performance gains, most users don't care about it anyway, I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead (!?)..." Why so much resistance?

Izkata 7y ago
> most users don't care about it anyway Our designer was pissed off when we discovered this bug, which explained why Chrome was the only program that displayed RGB values differently from all the others (not just browsers). She'd been careful about standardizing and tweaking colors we already used to work better for people with colorblindness, much of which was thrown out the window on Chrome. Not to mention issues matching the PNGs and SVGs she created for the site. Quick edit: > Why so much resistance? Comment 34: > Chromium developers have previously stated this won't be supported for reasons mentioned in this old post. > https://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/ https://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/ From that link (posted in 2006): > The big hurdle that we ran into, though, was with the drawing we did not control, namely the Flash plug-in. The problem is that designers specify colors in Flash and colors in CSS in the Web page, and they expect those colors to match. Because Flash’s drawing isn’t correcting to sRGB, if we did it in Safari, there would be color mismatches all over the place. These mismatches look far worse than if we just don’t correct at all. Isn't Flash gone from Chrom(ium) now?
- Proven 7y ago
  It's not gone but it's going away 3 weeks from now. It's disabled but you can enable it. This is based on my experience with Chromium (I don't use Chrome.)
Kovah 7y ago
> I prefer it that way, webdevs should fix it, we should fix the JPEG standard instead Wow. Just wow. I have rarely seen so much ignorance. And this exactly why Chrome is cancer for the whole internet. I mean, seriously, why should the web developers fix something that is standardized just to make it work in Chrome? And fixing the JPEG standard...?

theandrewbailey 7y ago

I started using Firefox in 2004, and never stopped using it as a main driver since.

fastball 7y ago
Uhm. Is that somehow relevant to OC's comment?