9 ms·

FireFox Containers are a killer feature for me. It allows you to run sandboxed sessions. So you can ostensibly make every site a private tab by default but have

FireFox Containers are a killer feature for me. It allows you to run sandboxed sessions. So you can ostensibly make every site a private tab by default but have a small few sites persistent. Eg I’ll have a work group with GitHub, Okta, etc in it so I only need to log in once a day. But random websites cannot track me between sites. Couple that with DNS blocking of trackers and ads, and the web is actually a lot more pleasant to use. Unfortunately you cannot fix everything locally though.

dools 4y ago
The ability to have separate sessions was actually the reason I switched to chrome many years ago, looks like it’s time to give Firefox another look
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  Although Firefox had profiles for ages and you could start Firefox with the profile manager and "new instance allowed" to choose a profile at the start of each new instance. More hidden then in Chromium, but definitely possible. EDIT: Just for completeness sake, here is the command to open Firefox with profile manager and new instances: firefox --new-instance --ProfileManager %u
  - kevincox 4y ago
    Yes, but with this UX it may as well not exist for 99% of users. Container tabs while still a little power-user is something that can be explained to the average user.
    - anonymousab 4y ago
      One of the major problems with container tabs is that they share a lot of persistent state between them, such as browsing history. Profiles are mostly isolated by comparison.
  - commoner 4y ago
    The Firefox Profile Switcher add-on provides an easy-to-use interface that looks just like Chrome's: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switcher/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switc... You'll need to install a connector for it to work. (The add-on gives instructions during the onboarding process.) Both the add-on and the connector are free and open source (GPLv3). I use profiles and containers together on Firefox. Each profile has its own set of add-ons, browser settings, and containers. Containers in the same profile share the same add-ons and browser settings. For example, you could have separate personal and work profiles, with containers for different online accounts in each profile. On Firefox, you have the option of using only profiles, only containers, both profiles and containers, or none of the above.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      I've been looking for something like that. Thanks. But ideally, I don't want to swithswitch profiles. I want to have muliple instances of FF open, each with a different profile. Just like Chromium based browsers and users. Anything for that?
      - commoner 4y ago
        When you choose a different profile in the Firefox Profile Switcher menu, it opens a new instance of Firefox with the new profile. The add-on experience will be very familiar if you've used Chromium's profile management features. If you're trying to create a shortcut to Firefox that launches a profile other than the one you've selected as the default, the instructions for Linux and Windows are here: https://kb.mozillazine.org/Shortcut_to_a_specific_profile https://kb.mozillazine.org/Shortcut_to_a_specific_profile This is not necessary to use the profile feature, but some people prefer to launch profiles from shortcuts instead of a menu.
      - fsflover 4y ago
        This is how I use Firefox; you need Qubes OS for that.
      - lukewiwa 4y ago
  - jordemort 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure the profile manager stuff in Firefox goes all the way back to the Netscape 4 days. If I recall correctly, back in the way back, it used to throw you into Profile Manager and walk you through creating your initial one on first launch of fresh installs. At some point they tucked that under the rug and just started creating the default profile automatically - maybe because it made less sense to ask for a bunch of personal information up-front when the browser was broken off from the mail client? Now most people have forgotten that Profile Manager even exists, but it's been there the whole time.
    - johnny22 4y ago
      my parents rely on Profile Manager. I set that up for them years ago, since my mom uses my dad's computer a bit every day. She has no need for a whole user account. Separating the stuff in the browser is enough.
- prox 4y ago
  I hope you become a full time user, lets curb the direction Google wants to go in.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Even if the entire HN community would switch to Firefox, it would still be a drop in the ocean to curbing Chrome's market share. Also Firefox hasn't been doing itself any favors by alienating both the average Joe consumers and the professional devs over the years.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      No it wouldn't, that's just pessimism. The entire HN community switching would have massive second-order effects. People would see experts (us) using it, we'd promote it and install it for people, we'd speak positively about it, we'd develop with it, etc. (I won't write the whole list.)
      - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
        Not only that. Every few weeks I come across a site that works better in Chrome than in FF or has some quirks (Google's spreadsheets are a good example - they feel slower in FF). Although I have no hope of changing the mindset of HNers working at Google, the rest of us could make a difference.
        dhimes 4y ago
        Yeah I hate that. I still have a problem seeing comments on youtube in firefox, even when I'm logged in. Not sure we're going to be able to fix if google targets their properties to only their browser, outside of a lawsuit or gov't action.
        Kelm 4y ago
        I daily drive Firefox for a few years now, including watching youtube - never faced your issue… Maybe a misbehaving extension?
detritus 4y ago
I'm a big fan of multi-account containers.. or at least, was. Recently I inadvertantly added a domain to one of the ascribed containers on my laptop and I'll be damned if I can work out how to undo it, other than uninstalling and starting over, which'll be a pain, because I've customised it quite a bit. ...This is a plea for help, by the way, in case it wasn't obvious :) I'm sure there must be a json file or something, somewhere, I can just edit.
- sebazzz 4y ago
  When visiting the domain, open the container menu by clicking the icon and uncheck "always open in this container".
  - detritus 4y ago
    Yeah, that's the most immediate thing to try, but unfortunately, that doesn't work for some reason.
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  I do not know how to directly manipulate the container, but I think what you can do is, that you open a new tab of another container and copy paste the URL there. Then you can set it to always open the domain in that container, effectively changing the container. Not sure how to remove a domain from all containers though.
- andinus 4y ago
  Multi-Accounts Container Version: 8.0.7 You can click on "Manage Containers", choose a container and then remove the site with "Manage Site List".
  - detritus 4y ago
    Oh Gosh, I feel so stupid - that's exactly what I was looking for.. please tell me they just added that this morning? I know they didn't..!
nfbyte 4y ago
You can also set a proxy per container (and assign specific websites to always use it), and when you combine that with an ultra-cheap VPS running e.g. a Shadowsocks server you have what I think is the real way to circumvent censorship and bypass regional restrictions (as opposed to using snake oil "VPN" providers or even the Tor Browser).
- mark_l_watson 4y ago
  Are most VPN provides unreliable? I don’t know - never researched this. I use Proton VPN because it is bundled with ProtonMail. I very much like preventing my national Internet service provider from selling my browsing history.
  - toma_caliente 4y ago
    Most VPN providers you typically see pushed are very suspect at best. Especially the ones you see commonly pushed by Youtubers like NordVPN, ExpressVPN etc. I think the only VPNs that have actually been externally audited are Mullvad and ProtonVPN.
    - barbacoa 4y ago
      What's is the concern about VPNs being "suspect" or "reliable"? I hear this a lot about VPN providers but not sure why. If the VPN is logging your activity/IP you'd have to be doing something super illegal for the police to want to get a search warrant for your data.
      - SnowHill9902 4y ago
        As always, the answer is it depends on your threat model.
      - _wcd2 4y ago
        It's not just that they're suspect or unreliable. They're complete bullshit. The actual use of VPN technology is to create virtual networks that are private (hence the name). It's a system level technology. There are several types of network topologies you can set up, when I was learning about this I found this article which is quite nice: https://www.procustodibus.com/blog/2020/10/wireguard-topologies https://www.procustodibus.com/blog/2020/10/wireguard-topolog.... You can proxy traffic through a VPN, but the only scenario I can think of in which it makes sense is if you are an OSINT researcher and you need a safe system on which to conduct your research. If you need to proxy traffic and "hide" your IP, just use a flipping proxy. It's an application level technology (e.g. for torrenting, every torrent client under the sun supports a SOCKS5 proxy). If you don't have the patience to set up a VPS yourself, you can even use something like Outline (https://getoutline.org https://getoutline.org) which automates that (and it has a mobile client app as well). If you need privacy (and to actually hide your IP), then use Tor.
pmoriarty 4y ago
"random websites cannot track me between sites" Given all the ways there are to fingerprint browsers these days, this belief is likely to be overly optimistic.
timvisee 4y ago
I use it for personal, company and other sessions in the same window, to authenticate with different credentials on the same sites. It's fantastic!
eliaspro 4y ago
A crucial feature which is missing for me in containers is the ability to limit AddOns to specific containers. My employer's org deploys a Microsoft SSO AddOn which re-uses the OS-level identity to auto-login to Microsoft/Office365/Azure and causes me quite some headaches when dealing with my customers' logins, which are usually in separate containers. I switched to FF profiles for those use-cases for now, but it's far from the container experience in terms of usability and integration.
- evulhotdog 4y ago
  This is one of the reasons I’m stuck in the Chrome world. Having separate windows for different profiles and having MacOS open a link from another app in the window your last had focus of is so incredibly convenient. But having a personal and work password manager is something I couldn’t overcome in Firefox. Especially with the Firefox profiles being so archaic and painful to use.
yalogin 4y ago
I don’t get why random websites cannot track you across sites. The IP is still the same and so is the hardware/OS combination it’s running on. They can absolutely track you.
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  Use a different SOCKS proxy for each container.
heresie-dabord 4y ago
The Mozilla focus on privacy is the killer feature for me. DNS encrypted "Total Cookie Protection" uBlock Origin multi-account containers I also like built-in screen capture *various other extensions, such as Copy All Tab URLs I didn't find "Pocket" compelling when it was first introduced, but I have since found some of the recommendations interesting. Bravo Mozilla!
- slenk 4y ago
  Pocket is the only reason I use LibreWolf - I don't trust its integration and what parts I can actually disable
  - sp332 4y ago
    What do you think Mozilla is doing with Pocket they couldn't do with... the rest of the browser?
    - slenk 4y ago
      Sending data TO pocket...I already know I am sending data to Mozilla
      - sp332 4y ago
        Pocket was bought by the Mozilla Corporation over 5 years ago. It's a first-party Mozilla product.
        slenk 4y ago
        I did not realize that. I still don't like the fact that it has sponsored links then - that is what rubs me the wrong way.
        sp332 4y ago
        Yup, it's not great. Still seems easier to just turn them off with the new tab settings panel than recompile the whole browser, but I guess everyone has their own preferences.
thrwawy283 4y ago
That + the Temporary Containers extension can make every new tab a new container by default. I also use Container Proxy so I can route traffic from each tab through a different proxy if needed (mitmproxy). I've wanted to go to Chrome but Chrome has nothing like per-tab sessions/isolation. I looked at first party isolation but it's vague and doesn't seem like what Firefox provides. Firefox is the only browser that can do this. Also Google's UI decisions are just unilateral and awful. At least with Firefox we can still tweak some of it.
rsync 4y ago
"FireFox Containers are a killer feature for me ..." They are a killer idea but their implementation is disappointing. In no particular order ... - You can't clear history for a particular container space [1] - Containers are only tabs - so you can't, for instance, create a window and have all future tabs created in that window inherit that container - No "private" (or "burner") container that saves nothing outside of each individual tab No, I am not interested in solving these basic, first-order use-cases with some rando extension from joey75 @ gitlabusercontent.downloads.tv. [1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1170863 https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1170863
- ravenstine 4y ago
  Though I absolutely agree that the implementation is disappointing, most concerns about history pretty much disappear if you disable history globally. Having lived without history in my browser for years now, I ponder whether that should be the default because I haven't missed it one bit. > Containers are only tabs - so you can't, for instance, create a window and have all future tabs created in that window inherit that container True, but if that's something you want, you can do that without the multi-account container tabs. Just create a new profile that's separate from the default one. The drawback to that is you have to reinstall any extensions you use because they won't be shared.
  - sfink 4y ago
    In my opinion, history access is a major advantage of Firefox over Chrome. There are many sites that I don't bother to bookmark because I know typing a substring into the location bar will bring it up as a suggestion faster than I would be able to choose it from a bookmark menu. Plus, it displays a bunch of related URLs which are surprisingly often useful. I definitely would not want to default to disabling it. It's my browser, and letting it remember where I've been enables it to be much more useful to me.
- 41b696ef1113 4y ago
  The "burner" container is 100% what I want. There are only a handful of sites for which I want to be able to maintain history.

dools 4y ago

The ability to have separate sessions was actually the reason I switched to chrome many years ago, looks like it’s time to give Firefox another look

zelphirkalt 4y ago
Although Firefox had profiles for ages and you could start Firefox with the profile manager and "new instance allowed" to choose a profile at the start of each new instance. More hidden then in Chromium, but definitely possible. EDIT: Just for completeness sake, here is the command to open Firefox with profile manager and new instances: firefox --new-instance --ProfileManager %u
- kevincox 4y ago
  Yes, but with this UX it may as well not exist for 99% of users. Container tabs while still a little power-user is something that can be explained to the average user.
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    One of the major problems with container tabs is that they share a lot of persistent state between them, such as browsing history. Profiles are mostly isolated by comparison.
- commoner 4y ago
  The Firefox Profile Switcher add-on provides an easy-to-use interface that looks just like Chrome's: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switcher/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switc... You'll need to install a connector for it to work. (The add-on gives instructions during the onboarding process.) Both the add-on and the connector are free and open source (GPLv3). I use profiles and containers together on Firefox. Each profile has its own set of add-ons, browser settings, and containers. Containers in the same profile share the same add-ons and browser settings. For example, you could have separate personal and work profiles, with containers for different online accounts in each profile. On Firefox, you have the option of using only profiles, only containers, both profiles and containers, or none of the above.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I've been looking for something like that. Thanks. But ideally, I don't want to swithswitch profiles. I want to have muliple instances of FF open, each with a different profile. Just like Chromium based browsers and users. Anything for that?
    - commoner 4y ago
      When you choose a different profile in the Firefox Profile Switcher menu, it opens a new instance of Firefox with the new profile. The add-on experience will be very familiar if you've used Chromium's profile management features. If you're trying to create a shortcut to Firefox that launches a profile other than the one you've selected as the default, the instructions for Linux and Windows are here: https://kb.mozillazine.org/Shortcut_to_a_specific_profile https://kb.mozillazine.org/Shortcut_to_a_specific_profile This is not necessary to use the profile feature, but some people prefer to launch profiles from shortcuts instead of a menu.
    - fsflover 4y ago
      This is how I use Firefox; you need Qubes OS for that.
    - lukewiwa 4y ago
- jordemort 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure the profile manager stuff in Firefox goes all the way back to the Netscape 4 days. If I recall correctly, back in the way back, it used to throw you into Profile Manager and walk you through creating your initial one on first launch of fresh installs. At some point they tucked that under the rug and just started creating the default profile automatically - maybe because it made less sense to ask for a bunch of personal information up-front when the browser was broken off from the mail client? Now most people have forgotten that Profile Manager even exists, but it's been there the whole time.
  - johnny22 4y ago
    my parents rely on Profile Manager. I set that up for them years ago, since my mom uses my dad's computer a bit every day. She has no need for a whole user account. Separating the stuff in the browser is enough.
prox 4y ago
I hope you become a full time user, lets curb the direction Google wants to go in.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Even if the entire HN community would switch to Firefox, it would still be a drop in the ocean to curbing Chrome's market share. Also Firefox hasn't been doing itself any favors by alienating both the average Joe consumers and the professional devs over the years.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    No it wouldn't, that's just pessimism. The entire HN community switching would have massive second-order effects. People would see experts (us) using it, we'd promote it and install it for people, we'd speak positively about it, we'd develop with it, etc. (I won't write the whole list.)
    - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
      Not only that. Every few weeks I come across a site that works better in Chrome than in FF or has some quirks (Google's spreadsheets are a good example - they feel slower in FF). Although I have no hope of changing the mindset of HNers working at Google, the rest of us could make a difference.
      - dhimes 4y ago
        Yeah I hate that. I still have a problem seeing comments on youtube in firefox, even when I'm logged in. Not sure we're going to be able to fix if google targets their properties to only their browser, outside of a lawsuit or gov't action.
        Kelm 4y ago
        I daily drive Firefox for a few years now, including watching youtube - never faced your issue… Maybe a misbehaving extension?

detritus 4y ago

I'm a big fan of multi-account containers.. or at least, was. Recently I inadvertantly added a domain to one of the ascribed containers on my laptop and I'll be damned if I can work out how to undo it, other than uninstalling and starting over, which'll be a pain, because I've customised it quite a bit. ...This is a plea for help, by the way, in case it wasn't obvious :) I'm sure there must be a json file or something, somewhere, I can just edit.

sebazzz 4y ago
When visiting the domain, open the container menu by clicking the icon and uncheck "always open in this container".
- detritus 4y ago
  Yeah, that's the most immediate thing to try, but unfortunately, that doesn't work for some reason.
zelphirkalt 4y ago
I do not know how to directly manipulate the container, but I think what you can do is, that you open a new tab of another container and copy paste the URL there. Then you can set it to always open the domain in that container, effectively changing the container. Not sure how to remove a domain from all containers though.
andinus 4y ago
Multi-Accounts Container Version: 8.0.7 You can click on "Manage Containers", choose a container and then remove the site with "Manage Site List".
- detritus 4y ago
  Oh Gosh, I feel so stupid - that's exactly what I was looking for.. please tell me they just added that this morning? I know they didn't..!

nfbyte 4y ago

You can also set a proxy per container (and assign specific websites to always use it), and when you combine that with an ultra-cheap VPS running e.g. a Shadowsocks server you have what I think is the real way to circumvent censorship and bypass regional restrictions (as opposed to using snake oil "VPN" providers or even the Tor Browser).

mark_l_watson 4y ago
Are most VPN provides unreliable? I don’t know - never researched this. I use Proton VPN because it is bundled with ProtonMail. I very much like preventing my national Internet service provider from selling my browsing history.
- toma_caliente 4y ago
  Most VPN providers you typically see pushed are very suspect at best. Especially the ones you see commonly pushed by Youtubers like NordVPN, ExpressVPN etc. I think the only VPNs that have actually been externally audited are Mullvad and ProtonVPN.
  - barbacoa 4y ago
    What's is the concern about VPNs being "suspect" or "reliable"? I hear this a lot about VPN providers but not sure why. If the VPN is logging your activity/IP you'd have to be doing something super illegal for the police to want to get a search warrant for your data.
    - SnowHill9902 4y ago
      As always, the answer is it depends on your threat model.
    - _wcd2 4y ago
      It's not just that they're suspect or unreliable. They're complete bullshit. The actual use of VPN technology is to create virtual networks that are private (hence the name). It's a system level technology. There are several types of network topologies you can set up, when I was learning about this I found this article which is quite nice: https://www.procustodibus.com/blog/2020/10/wireguard-topologies https://www.procustodibus.com/blog/2020/10/wireguard-topolog.... You can proxy traffic through a VPN, but the only scenario I can think of in which it makes sense is if you are an OSINT researcher and you need a safe system on which to conduct your research. If you need to proxy traffic and "hide" your IP, just use a flipping proxy. It's an application level technology (e.g. for torrenting, every torrent client under the sun supports a SOCKS5 proxy). If you don't have the patience to set up a VPS yourself, you can even use something like Outline (https://getoutline.org https://getoutline.org) which automates that (and it has a mobile client app as well). If you need privacy (and to actually hide your IP), then use Tor.

pmoriarty 4y ago

"random websites cannot track me between sites" Given all the ways there are to fingerprint browsers these days, this belief is likely to be overly optimistic.

timvisee 4y ago

I use it for personal, company and other sessions in the same window, to authenticate with different credentials on the same sites. It's fantastic!

eliaspro 4y ago

A crucial feature which is missing for me in containers is the ability to limit AddOns to specific containers. My employer's org deploys a Microsoft SSO AddOn which re-uses the OS-level identity to auto-login to Microsoft/Office365/Azure and causes me quite some headaches when dealing with my customers' logins, which are usually in separate containers. I switched to FF profiles for those use-cases for now, but it's far from the container experience in terms of usability and integration.

evulhotdog 4y ago
This is one of the reasons I’m stuck in the Chrome world. Having separate windows for different profiles and having MacOS open a link from another app in the window your last had focus of is so incredibly convenient. But having a personal and work password manager is something I couldn’t overcome in Firefox. Especially with the Firefox profiles being so archaic and painful to use.

yalogin 4y ago

I don’t get why random websites cannot track you across sites. The IP is still the same and so is the hardware/OS combination it’s running on. They can absolutely track you.

MacsHeadroom 4y ago
Use a different SOCKS proxy for each container.

heresie-dabord 4y ago

The Mozilla focus on privacy is the killer feature for me. DNS encrypted "Total Cookie Protection" uBlock Origin multi-account containers I also like built-in screen capture *various other extensions, such as Copy All Tab URLs I didn't find "Pocket" compelling when it was first introduced, but I have since found some of the recommendations interesting. Bravo Mozilla!

slenk 4y ago
Pocket is the only reason I use LibreWolf - I don't trust its integration and what parts I can actually disable
- sp332 4y ago
  What do you think Mozilla is doing with Pocket they couldn't do with... the rest of the browser?
  - slenk 4y ago
    Sending data TO pocket...I already know I am sending data to Mozilla
    - sp332 4y ago
      Pocket was bought by the Mozilla Corporation over 5 years ago. It's a first-party Mozilla product.
      - slenk 4y ago
        I did not realize that. I still don't like the fact that it has sponsored links then - that is what rubs me the wrong way.
        sp332 4y ago
        Yup, it's not great. Still seems easier to just turn them off with the new tab settings panel than recompile the whole browser, but I guess everyone has their own preferences.

thrwawy283 4y ago

That + the Temporary Containers extension can make every new tab a new container by default. I also use Container Proxy so I can route traffic from each tab through a different proxy if needed (mitmproxy). I've wanted to go to Chrome but Chrome has nothing like per-tab sessions/isolation. I looked at first party isolation but it's vague and doesn't seem like what Firefox provides. Firefox is the only browser that can do this. Also Google's UI decisions are just unilateral and awful. At least with Firefox we can still tweak some of it.

rsync 4y ago

"FireFox Containers are a killer feature for me ..." They are a killer idea but their implementation is disappointing. In no particular order ... - You can't clear history for a particular container space [1] - Containers are only tabs - so you can't, for instance, create a window and have all future tabs created in that window inherit that container - No "private" (or "burner") container that saves nothing outside of each individual tab No, I am not interested in solving these basic, first-order use-cases with some rando extension from joey75 @ gitlabusercontent.downloads.tv. [1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1170863 https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1170863

ravenstine 4y ago
Though I absolutely agree that the implementation is disappointing, most concerns about history pretty much disappear if you disable history globally. Having lived without history in my browser for years now, I ponder whether that should be the default because I haven't missed it one bit. > Containers are only tabs - so you can't, for instance, create a window and have all future tabs created in that window inherit that container True, but if that's something you want, you can do that without the multi-account container tabs. Just create a new profile that's separate from the default one. The drawback to that is you have to reinstall any extensions you use because they won't be shared.
- sfink 4y ago
  In my opinion, history access is a major advantage of Firefox over Chrome. There are many sites that I don't bother to bookmark because I know typing a substring into the location bar will bring it up as a suggestion faster than I would be able to choose it from a bookmark menu. Plus, it displays a bunch of related URLs which are surprisingly often useful. I definitely would not want to default to disabling it. It's my browser, and letting it remember where I've been enables it to be much more useful to me.
41b696ef1113 4y ago
The "burner" container is 100% what I want. There are only a handful of sites for which I want to be able to maintain history.