9 ms·
This might be harmful to github pages where it would hide the repository name. If they include this without offering an option to turn it off, I will quit using
by Gehinnn 6y ago
This might be harmful to github pages where it would hide the repository name.
If they include this without offering an option to turn it off, I will quit using Chrome.
- curiousgal 6y agoI switched to Firefox years ago and never looked back.
- nxpnsv 6y agoIt is weird not more people just respond this way rather than getting all worked up about it...
- Angostura 6y agoIt's weird that people like a particular browswer for a number of its feature, but are upset about a change that makes it worse?
- randomsearch 6y agoChrome is the new IE. Some sites don’t work (well) with others browsers, so people are annoyed when the browser they are forced to use does stupid things.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoBefore Edge came out, I always preferred IE11 over Chrome (on machines that only had those two installed), because IE11 kept the legacy "must compete with Netscape" features like decent contentEditable context menus. And websites that didn't work in IE11 generally weren't worth using anyway. Now… well, IE11 doesn't even support ES6 properly, and good sites have started relying on that, and Edge is just evil Chrome – unless it's got Firefox installed, Chrome's your only option. But sites that use Chrome-only APIs aren't worth using anyway. (Oh, wait, Zoom needs either Chrome or a malwarey desktop program.)
- grey_earthling 6y agoZoom works in Firefox. And there are alternatives to Zoom, e.g. Jitsi.
- ekimekim 6y ago> Zoom needs either Chrome or a malwarey desktop program ...and the malwarey desktop program is also Chrome.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoThe backdoor part isn't Chrome, though, is it? (If it's a Node.js script bundled with yet another copy of V8, I'll scream.)
- cageface 6y agoThis analogy would work if Google was deliberately holding back new features on the web to favor its proprietary operating system but in fact the situation is pretty much the opposite. I also don't understand why everyone is up with pitchforks at Google on this when Apple did the same thing to URLs a while ago. I guess engineers are just as susceptible to groupthink as anyone else.
- gruez 6y ago>This analogy would work if Google was deliberately holding back new features on the web to favor its proprietary operating system but in fact the situation is pretty much the opposite. They do kind of do that. Rather than going through the consensus process for getting a web standard added, they implement it in chrome then unilaterally write a standard for themselves. See for example, the SGX (signed exchange) "standard" they pushed out.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoMost people don't use apple.
- cageface 6y agoApple is massively popular in the US. The last few projects I've worked on our users were 50% iOS Safari.
- tjoff 6y agoYes, it is kind of weird to like a browser where the company behind it are actively working against the web when there are decent alternatives (arguably better alternatives) that does not contribute to a monopoly that we can not break. Do you think IE6 was bad? Remember how long it took to get rid of it? Imagine a world where the monopoly leader doesn't just walk away from the browser (which is what MS did with IE6) but actively abuses the situation. It will be orders of magnitude worse. Say hi to amp. Say hi to chrome. Say hi to google. Say goodbye to the web.
- toyg 6y ago> Remember how long it took to get rid of it? I suspect a lot of people in this conversation are not old enough to remember, even if they wanted to. Maybe universities should have an obligation to promote nonprofit tools (i.e. Firefox) rather than shady commercial software that only happens to be gratis.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoIt's weird that they complain yet don't actually switch.
- cryptica 6y agoPasswords and bookmarks are in Chrome. That's the main point of friction. But I do re-evaluate Firefox from time to time. So far there has often been small things which made me reluctant. I think this feature is important enough for me to consider switching this time.
- curiousgal 6y agoYou can easily transfer those to Firefox. That being said, I admit that staright out of the box Firefox doesn't have the same experience but you can customize every little thing about it to make it suit your needs.
- toyg 6y agoThat’s too close for comfort to the Windows/Linux comparison. This said, I honestly don’t understand what people mean when they say the experience is “superior” in Chrome. It’s a web browser. It browses. You get passwords saved and synchronised. Everything else is an extension. What’s so bad about FF...?
- CyanBird 6y agoI would love to get comments from Chrome users I just could not live without firefox and being unable to share tabs/links from anywhere in my phone to my desktop and or laptop
- fastball 6y agoYou can do that with Chrome if you are signed in.
- kjakm 6y agoAs a Safari user it boggles my mind that Firefox's send to device feature is considered good at all. All my Safari tabs are automatically synced to my phone at all times with no intervention needed from me. It's one of the few things keeping me from switching to Firefox actually.
- shagabutdinov 6y agohttps://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1628162 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1628162
- boomboomsubban 6y agoA two month old bug they're trying to fix keeps you from switching? Is it present in the ESR?
- nxpnsv 6y agoI need more context to judge. But I am sure there occasionally are bugs in chrome too...
- cannedslime 6y agoFirefox donating to what is literally a encrypted message service for open societies foundation agitprop groups is what made me purge firefox from all my systems. I'd rather be tracked up the A by google for commercial purposes than supporting anti-democratic agitprop bullshit.
- tuukkah 6y agoYou do realise that you don't get to choose between getting tracked by Google or "supporting" the goals of Mozilla Foundation (such as freedom of speech for all including your political enemies)? That is, by choosing Chrome you also "support" any and all political goals of Google (such as replacing the open web with AMP).
- cannedslime 6y agoSadly, yes I realize that.
- YarickR2 6y agoCould you please clarify what are you talking about ?
- cannedslime 6y agoMozilla donated to riseup.net some years ago, after they shunned Brendan Eich from his own creation. Riseup.net is a encrypted mail service for OSF agitprop groups.
- GoToRO 6y agoI never switched away from Firefox. I am old enough to know that nothing comes free, especially from a Big Corporation. As customers, all we can do is to always keep a good alternative alive, no matter what.
- Keloo 6y agoBut Chrome is not free (well kind of). It saves lot's of money in royalties for Google (because Google search is the default search engine in Chrome). So even if it's 'free' it saves money for Google.
- fastball 6y agoFirefox isn't free either. It's just paid for by Google.
- andai 6y agoThe other day I heard Firefox described as Google's antitrust lawsuit insurance...
- AsyncAwait 6y agoThat doesn't mean it's behavior is the same.
- fastball 6y ago
- saurik 6y agoGiven that Firefox slowly adds all the things we hate about Chrome due to the argument "we need to compete for normal users", how much do you want to bet Firefox will hide the URL in a few months (and even remove the setting that lets you change it)? :(
- amanzi 6y agoFirefox is already doing this! I recently had to dive into the about:config to find a setting that was hiding part of the URL. Although I can no longer find the setting that I configured so perhaps this has been changed in a recent update? Edit - found it: the setting "browser.urlbar.trimURLs" hides the "http://" http://" protocol if it's used. I do a lot of local development and found it annoying that Firefox was hiding it.
- JBiserkov 6y agoThanks for this! Turned it off. I guess I haven't noticed because my focus was always attracted to the padlock with a red line through it in front of the URL.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoExcept in Chrome, you don't even get a flag.
- jpxw 6y agoAlso any of the many sites where content for different people is hosted under example.com/~username/content
- gspr 6y agoNext step: an "education campaign" to tell people that that part of the web is "insecure". In fact you should only get any content from a handful of domains. And in non-net-neutrality jurisdictions, the ISPs will start offering packages that work with pre-approved domains only. And since it'll be enough for 90% people, it'll work. I hope I'm just being alarmist.
- vladvasiliu 6y agoThis already kind of happens in Firefox. If you have a non public certificate authority, when you visit a site signed by that CA it says that it's not verified by an authority known to Firefox. I don't know if there is a way to "bless" such an authority once it's added to the trust store.
- toyg 6y ago? If it’s added to the trust store, it should be blessed. Note that this is the FF store, not the Windows one.
- extra88 6y agoWhat browser doesn’t warn you about sites signed by a CA not in their list of CAs?
- vladvasiliu 6y agoI specifically said "once it's added to the trust store". It is known to the browser. When I wrote the message I wasn't in front of Firefox, now I am. So to summarize: * The CA's certificate is added to the Firefox store and trusted. * Visiting a site gets the lock in the address bar. * Clicking on the lock in bar shows "Connection secure. Connection is verified by a certificate issuer that is not recognized by Mozilla" Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/T4rznXK https://imgur.com/a/T4rznXK
- zozbot234 6y agoSubdomains are part of the URI authority component so they should be shown. It will look like `something.github.io` or whatever.
- MastrChefRocks 6y agowww is dropped from the url, so I don't believe that's the case
- mfontani 6y agoChrome is/has/was special-cased dropping the display of the "www." prefix, and that one only, for a while now.
- felixfbecker 6y agoIt is, there’s a long special list for domains that host arbitrary subdomains, GitHub pages is one of them. It’s explained well in https://youtu.be/0-wB1VY3Nrc https://youtu.be/0-wB1VY3Nrc
- dTal 6y agoWait, seriously? Their default behaviour is so broken that they have to whitelist a ton of sites, and screw anybody who slips through the net (or is trying to start a new service)?
- jraph 6y agoMost browsers use the Mozilla public suffix list [1] that is frequently updated, and a new service can easily submit a new entry. This list is used for many different features. This list is necessary anyway, because you have top level domains that look like .co.uk, so you can't just split the domain name by dots and take the last component to determine the top level domain. So, not saying I unconditionally like the fact they are hiding important information in the URL bar, but I would not say their default behavior is that broken. [1] https://publicsuffix.org https://publicsuffix.org - probably the list being mentioned in the video linked by the parent commenter, I guess
- amingilani 6y agoI switched to Firefox the moment they hid the `www` prefix.
- bigyikes 6y agoWhat’s so bad about hiding www? I kind of prefer it hidden
- vonquant 6y agowww.example.com and example.com don't necessarily resolve to the same place.
- chiefsucker 6y agoA common convention with system administrators is to have the canonical name at www.* and redirect www-less requests to the former. If you argue that a browser implementation should fix uncommon configurations, I would argue that administrators should fix their configurations in the first place. You don’t have this issue at all for domains that don’t have a www subdomain. Furthermore it would be extremely confusing to have different content for www.example.com & example.com.
- neurostimulant 6y agoYeah, I don't like the current trend to redirect www to root. You can easily doing simple dns-based load balancing by having multiple ip addresses on the www subdomain. You can't do that on root domain, you'll have to use a dedicated load balancer even if all you want is just simple load balancing among a small set of servers. It only benefit cloud vendors and hurt hobbyist/small website operators if this trend continues to the point that visitors expect all websites to be served from root insetad of www.
- NateEag 6y agoI also dislike the trend to redirect the 'www' prefix to root. My company uses DNS load balancing for a root domain, though, so either I'm misunderstanding you or you're mistaken about what's possible here. We use Constellix's DNS management to have round-robin DNS via multiple A records for 'nxtbook.com'. If you're thinking of some other form of DNS load balancing, would you please clarify?
- theelous3 6y agoThe question is, why haven't you quit already? The only things it offers others don't, are anti consumer vendor lock in nonsense like hangouts and google earth. (Not sure about hangouts and meet these days, mozilla likely made it work, but not for lack of scumbag google trying otherwise).
- shagabutdinov 6y agoBecause it has bugs that make it unusable for some people (e.g developers) - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1628162 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1628162
- tuukkah 6y agoThe difference being that when Chrome is unusable for developers (such as hiding the URL!), it's always a feature not a bug?
- shadowgovt 6y agoIf I need the whole URL visible at all times as a developer, that's an hour of chrome extension writing to make it always viewable. Can I pull that off in FF?
- tuukkah 6y agoI'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether Firefox supports browser extensions? If so, the answer is yes. Firefox has always had extensions including epic breakthroughs such as Adblock (Plus) from 2002 and Firebug from 2006. (Google Chrome has had extensions since 2010.)
- Kaze404 6y ago> If I need the whole URL visible at all times as a developer, that's an hour of chrome extension writing to make it always viewable. Interesting. Other comments in this thread indicate that the only extension that can do this has its ID hard-coded in the url parsing code to be whitelisted.
- andromeduck 6y agoYeah, I think having it intelligently bold/highlight or perhaps reduce significant parts of the URL would go a long way and likely makes more sense as a next step.
- Digit-Al 6y agoThat's exactly what Firefox does. I am typing this on Firefox and in the address bar "ycombinator.com" is in black and the rest of the address is in grey.
- andromeduck 6y agoWell chrome has been doing that for a while too but what I mean is more like significant parts of the url for trust like say the user in github.com/<user>/<project>, because the user represents a significant silo similar to if it were instead organized like <user>.github.com/<project> For example if I were to go to something like https://raw.githubusercontent.com/<user>/<proj>/<path> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/<user>/<proj>/<path> or the most relevant parts of the url as far as security/trust is concerned is the domain githubusercontent and <user> not the raw subdomain
- Digit-Al 6y agoWell, whilst that is a nice idea I can't see it happening anytime soon. Attempting to work out if a part of a URL represents a user name seems like a bit if an impossible task to me. I guess you could encode rules for specific well known sites but I doubt you could ever create a general solution, and if a site changed its URL you would become unstuck until you rolled out a fix.
- londons_explore 6y ago.GitHub.io is considered a top level domain, so it will still show the repo name. In the same way .co.uk is a top level domain.
- nerdponx 6y agoWhich of course allows Google to arbitrarily pick websites to privilege at the level of an actual TLD.
- scrollaway 6y agoNo, it's not Google arbitrarily picking that, it's a project maintained by the Mozilla Foundation. https://publicsuffix.org/ https://publicsuffix.org/
- rwha 6y agoCouldn't this also be harmful _using_ something like github pages? Someone could create a page that would look almost right for, as an example, https://username.github.io/google/google-authenticator-android https://username.github.io/google/google-authenticator-andro...
- ur-whale 6y ago> I will quit using Chrome. What's taken you so long ?
- zajio1am 6y agoIt would be harmful for any site, whose content 'root' is not (sub)domain. Thus most user-submitted content - projects on github, youtube channels, ...
- vntok 6y ago"URLs as breadcrumbs" solve this cleanly. They've already been visible for years in web search results. Here the address bar would show "(padlock) [Github Inc] Github.com > Name Of Account > Name Of Project" for example. This is much clearer for end users. Developers can always toggle an option to always show the URL or something.