5 ms·

I use Firefox and don't use containers, but I have a friend who can't use Firefox because it doesn't have multiple profiles. Chrome can create multiple browser

I use Firefox and don't use containers, but I have a friend who can't use Firefox because it doesn't have multiple profiles. Chrome can create multiple browser windows that are isolated from each other, making a very clear distinction of scope. Firefox has containers, chromium has profiles. They accomplish the same goals is sightly different ways.

buscoquadnary 5y ago
Firefox does have multiple profiles.
BeefWellington 5y ago
Firefox has both profiles and containers. However, the UX for Firefox's profiles feature is godawful. Lately though, I find I prefer not to trust the application to manage this and just launch separate profiles in their own separate app namespaces using things like firecracker, firejail, or similar (depending on need).
- easrng 5y ago
  about:profiles isn't that bad. There's no reference to it in the UI though.
  - BeefWellington 5y ago
    It's gotten better but I wouldn't say it isn't bad. A big part of the problem is not having an easy way to access it. Similarly, -ProfileManager has existed for ages and that experience is also bad. If I have to go to the lengths of about:profiles or using the -ProfileManager or -P command-line switches, why not just sandbox the entire thing? It definitely needs a useability upgrade.
    - jatone 5y ago
      i refuse to use it given how bad the ux is. which is unfortunate because its a killer feature and why I can't recommend firefox over chrome. basic ux.
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      >A big part of the problem is not having an easy way to access it. I've never had any issues typing "about:profiles" into the URL bar. It even autocompletes.
peakaboo 5y ago
about:profiles You can have as many as you want.
satysin 5y ago
> but I have a friend who can't use Firefox because it doesn't have multiple profiles. Did you or your friend not even try and Google for "firefox profiles"? Because if you did you would have found the following link as the top result https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-... Profiles have been in Firefox for longer than I can remember. I am pretty sure longer than Chrome has existed.
- andrecarini 5y ago
  Firefox's UI/UX for profiles is, unfortunately, very clunky and nowhere near as intuitive as Chrome's.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Needing to go to an internal page or create a custom shortcut to even see the feature exists has always been the problem, combined with the poor profile switching UI once you do know it exists. In Chrome it's an inherent part of the browser UI and the browser not only shows it to you but explains to you how to use them. Remember 2/3 of Firefox users don't even have an extension, expecting them to just accept this as the answer is laughable. I've always felt Chrome was missing proper containers and Firefox was missing proper profiles.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Just start with the -p flag
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      Yep, and that alone is enough for it to be too much a PITA to the average user. Modify a shortcut? Oh you mean all of them? Oh the Start Menu is customizable? Well I'm on a Mac. Well sometimes it doesn't work... wait what do you mean other programs can have opened Firefox and I have to reopen it with the right profile? I'm in the other profile now but the wrong stuff is there! (they didn't manually customize the secondary profile to be visually distinct). "just start with the -p flag" avoids the user accessibility issue with the technical answer repeated. These are obviously answered problems for anyone on HN but not obvious problems for the majority of users that have never even installed an extension (even an adblocker). Chrome avoids all of these by automatically managing the shortcuts (clearly named), providing clear in-browser always visible UI about multiple profiles (also clearly marked), and explaining to the user how to make/manage them in app. This is before getting into problems Chrome shares with Firefox like not syncing local profiles or issues with the way things work on Android.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Check out the Profiler Switcher for Firefox add-on[1]. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switcher/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switc...
- commoner 5y ago
  I highly recommend the Profile Switcher for Firefox add-on. Its user experience is very similar to Chrome's profile switcher menu. Different profiles must be loaded in different windows (like Chrome), but different containers can be used in different tabs in the same window. With both profiles and containers in Firefox, you get different containers per profile, which can be a useful way to organize them.
newhotelowner 5y ago
No. Firefox is way better. Firefox has profiles & containers. I just wish FF has a better support for PDF. I keep my NSFW Firefox profile in a veracrypt drive. Using about:profiles I can launch the profile that I want to use, and start from previous session.

buscoquadnary 5y ago

Firefox does have multiple profiles.

BeefWellington 5y ago

Firefox has both profiles and containers. However, the UX for Firefox's profiles feature is godawful. Lately though, I find I prefer not to trust the application to manage this and just launch separate profiles in their own separate app namespaces using things like firecracker, firejail, or similar (depending on need).

easrng 5y ago
about:profiles isn't that bad. There's no reference to it in the UI though.
- BeefWellington 5y ago
  It's gotten better but I wouldn't say it isn't bad. A big part of the problem is not having an easy way to access it. Similarly, -ProfileManager has existed for ages and that experience is also bad. If I have to go to the lengths of about:profiles or using the -ProfileManager or -P command-line switches, why not just sandbox the entire thing? It definitely needs a useability upgrade.
  - jatone 5y ago
    i refuse to use it given how bad the ux is. which is unfortunate because its a killer feature and why I can't recommend firefox over chrome. basic ux.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    >A big part of the problem is not having an easy way to access it. I've never had any issues typing "about:profiles" into the URL bar. It even autocompletes.

peakaboo 5y ago

about:profiles You can have as many as you want.

satysin 5y ago

> but I have a friend who can't use Firefox because it doesn't have multiple profiles. Did you or your friend not even try and Google for "firefox profiles"? Because if you did you would have found the following link as the top result https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-... Profiles have been in Firefox for longer than I can remember. I am pretty sure longer than Chrome has existed.

andrecarini 5y ago
Firefox's UI/UX for profiles is, unfortunately, very clunky and nowhere near as intuitive as Chrome's.
zamadatix 5y ago
Needing to go to an internal page or create a custom shortcut to even see the feature exists has always been the problem, combined with the poor profile switching UI once you do know it exists. In Chrome it's an inherent part of the browser UI and the browser not only shows it to you but explains to you how to use them. Remember 2/3 of Firefox users don't even have an extension, expecting them to just accept this as the answer is laughable. I've always felt Chrome was missing proper containers and Firefox was missing proper profiles.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Just start with the -p flag
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    Yep, and that alone is enough for it to be too much a PITA to the average user. Modify a shortcut? Oh you mean all of them? Oh the Start Menu is customizable? Well I'm on a Mac. Well sometimes it doesn't work... wait what do you mean other programs can have opened Firefox and I have to reopen it with the right profile? I'm in the other profile now but the wrong stuff is there! (they didn't manually customize the secondary profile to be visually distinct). "just start with the -p flag" avoids the user accessibility issue with the technical answer repeated. These are obviously answered problems for anyone on HN but not obvious problems for the majority of users that have never even installed an extension (even an adblocker). Chrome avoids all of these by automatically managing the shortcuts (clearly named), providing clear in-browser always visible UI about multiple profiles (also clearly marked), and explaining to the user how to make/manage them in app. This is before getting into problems Chrome shares with Firefox like not syncing local profiles or issues with the way things work on Android.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Check out the Profiler Switcher for Firefox add-on[1]. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switcher/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switc...

commoner 5y ago
I highly recommend the Profile Switcher for Firefox add-on. Its user experience is very similar to Chrome's profile switcher menu. Different profiles must be loaded in different windows (like Chrome), but different containers can be used in different tabs in the same window. With both profiles and containers in Firefox, you get different containers per profile, which can be a useful way to organize them.

newhotelowner 5y ago

No. Firefox is way better. Firefox has profiles & containers. I just wish FF has a better support for PDF. I keep my NSFW Firefox profile in a veracrypt drive. Using about:profiles I can launch the profile that I want to use, and start from previous session.