8 ms·

I feel this article almost do more harm than good. It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems". For insta

I feel this article almost do more harm than good. It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems". For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. Hundred times more smooth than profiles. Hence why no one cares about making profiles in Fx better, there is already a better solution to the problem profiles solve. Never had problems with font rendering. The download manager being different isn't a "problem", and even Chrome is changing it to become more like Fx's [0]. So it's not like Fx's version is "bad", just different. I'd rather have an article on "Switching from Chrome to Firefox? Here are some tips on great features in Firefox". Like how to use the multi-account containers I mentioned. Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). On how Sidebery or other tree-style tabs can make the experience so nice. etc. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36996287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36996287

gnicholas 3y ago
Yep, there should be a mention of how TST is better on FF than on any other browser (especially Chrome).
- lolinder 3y ago
  I agree with OP that the tone is needlessly negative, but while some people are super into TST, most of us don't care about it at all. I wouldn't say that any given article on Firefox "should" mention TST, because odds are the author won't be in the group that cares.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    In an article talking about the pros and cons of Chrome and FF, it would make sense to mention cult favorites like TST. I'm not sure where you get the notion that "most of us don't care about it at all" — perhaps you have more inside info than the rest of us? Regardless, I don't care about profiles or any of this other stuff, but I don't begrudge the author for mentioning things that aren't up my alley. In my mind, when I read a list-based article, I don't expect everything to be relevant to me.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      I'm not saying I would begrudge the author for mentioning TST, I'm saying that they're not obliged to mention things that they don't personally care about. I don't mind if a list of someone's favorite features has features I don't care about, nor do I mind if they neglect to mention features that I do care about. As for my information, I'm comparing the install base for TST with that of uBlock Origin (both only counting Firefox). It's not a perfect measurement, since not all Firefox users have uBO either, but it should if anything overestimate TST's relative popularity. Tree-style tabs [0] has 163,716 users. uBlock Origin [1] has 6,175,439 users (only counting Firefox). That places TST at about 2% of the install base of uBO, which is plenty small to justify my saying that most Firefox users (and prospective users) don't care about TST. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta... [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
dataflow 3y ago
> Never had problems with font rendering Okay, so what's the logical conclusion here? That the person is lying? The font rendering is very much off, some people just don't notice or don't care. Denying something others see with their own eyes doesn't help anybody.
- TonyTrapp 3y ago
  As a 15+ years Firefox user: What is "very much off" about Firefox' font rendering? For me it's the opposite, Chrome's rendering looks completely off to me - thin and it looks like the ClearType effect is set to 11. On the other hand, Firefox' font rendering in that screenshot looks like native Windows font rendering to me.
  - rjmunro 3y ago
    The problem with "very much off" for font rendering is that it is relative to what you are used to, not relative to any actual standard font rendering. If you've been using Firefox a while, Chrome will look off. If you've been using Chrome, Firefox will look off.
    - unethical_ban 3y ago
      "off" implies an error. Which browser does it correctly? Having used Vivaldi and Firefox in close succession I never noticed a difference.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        No, "off" in this case merely implies different from what you're used to. This is aesthetic preference, there's no such thing as "correct". It goes back to the old debate on Mac vs. Windows font rendering -- do you like pixel alignment or do you like letterform accuracy? There's no right answer.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
jklinger410 3y ago
> For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. Hundred times more smooth than profiles. Except for those of us with profile specific extensions, which containers don't help with at all.
- omniglottal 3y ago
  How are profile-specific Chrome extensions a problem in a Firefox install?
  - jklinger410 3y ago
    Let's say I have an extension that I use for work, that has a work-specific login or API key. I want to keep that plugin separate from the rest of my stuff because it's for work. You can't do that with tab containers. The profile interface for FF is archaic and hard to manage. Separate profiles was always a better solution than contained tabs.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      And what are those? I have yet to encounter anyone using a extension that contains some sort of work secrets/api. I'm not doubting it exists, but I think it's a use case which is maybe in the 0.00001% (if even that). On the other hand containers allow me to specify which ones to open on automatically and so I can use lots of different containers for different uses that I want to separate, e.g. Facebook, Gmail, HN... Something lots of people want to do, but you can't really do with profiles (well you could but it would be super annoying). Moreover I can use temporary containers so I have isolated tabs for all the general browsing (all websites where I haven't specified a specific container) with all the tracking information being deleted as soon as I close the tab.
      - jklinger410 3y ago
        > but I think it's a use case which is maybe in the 0.00001% (if even that). Actually password managers are very common, and immediately relevant to this conversation. I have a password manager for work, and one for personal. That puts us a bit higher than your pretty dismissive 0.00001% estimate. Literally the first thing that came to mind and there are many more examples. I use a tool called Junction which allows me to choose which browser opens up a link, which solves for your second issue. Isolated browsers are much better than isolated tabs.
luuurker 3y ago
(I'm replying to the original version of your comment.) How can you have different bookmarks, extensions, and maybe even a different theme (so you know you're using the right window) with containers? The answer is: you can't. Because containers and profiles are different things. That's the "sacrifice" you're asking users to make. To change the way they use browsers, to adapt to something that is useful, but not a complete replacement for the features they want. You're asking them to mix stuff and to be careful not to type personal stuff on a work container (or something like that). Yes, changing from Chrome to Firefox (and vice-versa) means that you need to make some sacrifices. I moved to Firefox and lost good profile support, have a higher battery drain, and have to deal with Firefox's inconsistencies (UI, ctrl+click behaving differently on links vs bookmarks, etc). I'm okay with the trade-off, but PR talk and positive outlooks don't make these annoyances and downsides go away.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > How can you have different bookmarks, extensions, and maybe even a different theme (so you know you're using the right window) > The answer is: you can't. Because containers and profiles are different things. If that's what you need then just use Firefox profiles then! The thing is, most people don't need that, and containers offert better ergonomics for the majority use-case (like the one described in the post). But if you still need the niche use-case, then go ahead and use a profile in Firefox too.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    Most people don't use chrome profiles either, this is definitely a power user functionnality.
    - thesuitonym 3y ago
      I'm not entirely certain this is true. Maybe at one point it was, but nowadays since signing into any Google site signs you into Chrome, a lot of folks have their work and personal email addresses as profiles in Chrome.
dano 3y ago
The Firefox documentation says to Enable Containers through General Settings -> Tabs [1] but there is no such checkbox [2]. Going into about:config and changing privacy.userContext.enabled and privacy.userContext.ui.enabled to true [3] enables the checkbox in the settings page [4]. This is Firefox Version 116.0.3 under Ubuntu. I use Chrome and Firefox interchangeably so I don't have a dog in this fight. Containers aka Personalities needs to be made a first class feature in Firefox and not require the above steps to make it useful to the less tech savy end user. 1. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain... 2. https://imgur.com/a/mX1P25J https://imgur.com/a/mX1P25J 3. https://imgur.com/a/fNyRnLk https://imgur.com/a/fNyRnLk 4. https://imgur.com/a/GjxJwIP https://imgur.com/a/GjxJwIP
- BeefWellington 3y ago
  The checkbox is indeed there for me in 111.x. Perhaps the documentation needs an update for the latest version if it's been moved elsewhere. Edit: I just checked in 116; it appears to just be always enabled now.
- heftig 3y ago
  Yeah, they're enabled by default only on Nightly. Apparently they're still considered "experimental". Officially, you enable them through the MAC extension, which also adds some more UI. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... Other extensions (like Tree Style Tab) can also cause container tabs to be enabled.
ttctciyf 3y ago
> [containers are a] better solution to the problem profiles solve If this problem is persona/identity/account isolation, then yes. If you want multiple parallel settings and add-on combinations, then no. I use profiles in firefox for this specific reason. I've no idea about chrome because I don't use it, but I haven't found any problem with firefox profiles for this purpose anyhow - I just configure the desktop to start firefox with -new-instance -ProfileManager and choose the profile at startup. If I want multiple profiles simultaneously, I just start them up on different virtual desktops.
tshaddox 3y ago
> I feel this article almost do more harm than good. It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems". Your comment is roughly of the form “that detailed article lists poor solutions to the problems you’ll likely encounter when switching to Firefox, so please instead follow my detailed instructions about alternate ways to fix the problems you’ll likely encounter when switching to Firefox.” It hardly makes anything feel simpler or more enticing!
unethical_ban 3y ago
I will say the process for creating a new container per website is bad. * Create new container "target" * Open new Target container * Go to target.com * Click the container menu and choose "Always open in..." and if you have a lot of containers, scroll down to "Target" And then, you still get asked "Hey, you told us to open this in the target container, is that correct?" even though I have *explicitly* said that's exactly what I want. --- I would like a shortcut button for any site that isn't assigned to a container, where I could click the container menu and say "Create new container and assign this site to it" where it all happens at once. Boom, site isolated.
- rakoo 3y ago
  Use Multi-Account Containers (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...), it does exactly what you want.
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    That's what I'm using. And I like its capability. But as I said, the first-time process for getting a site isolated (if you tend to isolate sites often) is cumbersome and I feel there could be a shortcut button for [create new container -> assign site to new container].
    - rakoo 3y ago
      Ah, I see; I tend to isolate all sites I trust in the same container and everything else goes in a temporary container so I mostly have one trusted container (along with one for each of Facebook, LinkedIn and Google). To add a new site to a new container, I manually edit the file (accessed through the pencil button) and add the line with the proper syntax: !*.sketchy-website.tld , My Isolation Container It allows me to define that I want that for all subdomains in the same workflow. But I have to admit it is far from easy for someone who is not already used to this.
- earth2jason 3y ago
reaperducer 3y ago
The thing that keeps me from using Firefox is that it doesn't use certain standard macOS interface methods. That keeps me from using macOS's built-in keybinding system to change tabs with the touch of a function key. Every other program I use from Finder to my database manager allows me to switch tabs with one button. Firefox has no way to accomplish this, which would make it an interruption to my muscle memory and therefore my productivity. Duck allows it, so that's what I use instead of Chrome.
- krackers 3y ago
  There's a way to rebind keys in Firefox, but it's extremely convoluted: something about editing omni.ja. I feel like Firefox goes out of its way to make it impossible for you to do so. Not to mention that they also go out of their way to be hostile to extension developers (unlike Chrome where you can just load an unpacked extension, with Firefox they impose the arbitrary limit that it gets removed after a restart). Also they don't seem to care one bit about user experience (in the genuine sense). There's a long-standing bug open for > 10yrs that Firefox does not disable sleep when uploading or downloading files. The day that I started a long-running downloaded and came back to find that my laptop had gone to sleep before it even hit 5% was when I uninstalled Firefox in a rage.
- jlokier 3y ago
  I'm not sure if this fits what you want with "allows me to switch tabs with one button", but in macOS Firefox keys ⌘1 to ⌘9 (cmd-1 to cmd-9) switch to tabs 1 to 9 respectively in the current window. ⌥⌘← and ⌥⌘→ (alt-cmd-left and alt-cmd-right) switch to tabs left/right.
  - reaperducer 3y ago
    That's two buttons, and different from how every single other program in my computer is configured, which is why I use Duck, instead.
deadbunny 3y ago
I disagree here as an avid user of containers. Profiles are still a better separation between personas I have my "home" profile and "work" profile in FF and they are trivially launched with `firefox -P "name"` and keep all data completely separated.
KptMarchewa 3y ago
>For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. Hundred times more smooth than profiles. Hence why no one cares about making profiles in Fx better, there is already a better solution to the problem profiles solve. I would do that if I could get separate history for a different containers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xg15 3y ago
As a happy, longtime Firefox user, have to hard disagree here. > It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems". Well yes, that was apparently the OP's feeling, along with the belief that overall, the "sacrifices" are worth it. So whether or not the issues felt important (or real) to you, they evidently were for the OP - and possibly other people who are considering switching but as of now are used to Chrome's way of doing things. > For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. If some issue arises because a user hasn't adapted their workflow to the new software and there is in fact a different way of doing things that will result in the same features, that's a legitimate thing to point out. But as the sibling comments make clear, that doesn't seem to be the case here, as containers are missing lots of features that profiles have. > Never had problems with font rendering. That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots. > The download manager being different isn't a "problem", and even Chrome is changing it to become more like Fx's [0]. So it's not like Fx's version is "bad", just different. FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade. > I'd rather have an article on "Switching from Chrome to Firefox? Here are some tips on great features in Firefox". Like how to use the multi-account containers I mentioned. Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). On how Sidebery or other tree-style tabs can make the experience so nice. etc. If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach. It's the users who decide what the important issues of a software are, not the developers.
- matsemann 3y ago
  > That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots. Well, it worked on their machine as well without their fixes. Chrome's font rendering is the one that's the most off from my system behavior, but the article makes it sound like Fx has broken fonts. While it's just a preference from the author. > FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade. No, it supports that. I use it all the time. > If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach. My point was that this isn't issues so much as things just being slightly different. When framed as "problems" it however paints them negatively, as if Fx way of doing things are somehow "wrong". That's my issue with the article, not that it points these things out.
cvladan 3y ago
Exactly. I've commented on article about containers.
boredhedgehog 3y ago
> Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). What exactly does Firefox do differently? I find that the Chrome bar learns very quickly which results to prioritize, based on my input.
- Dwedit 3y ago
  Chrome's bar is restricted to word boundaries, while Firefox's is not. You can type three characters from the middle of a word, and Firefox will match it, while Chrome will not.
trallnag 3y ago
What about PWA?
crossroadsguy 3y ago
Yes. You need to sacrifice. Almost zero of my banking and credit card websites work flawlessly on Firefox which does so on Chrome. So that’s a huge enough sacrifice for me — the end user.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Name them. All of mine do fine. Anecdotes are not data.

gnicholas 3y ago

Yep, there should be a mention of how TST is better on FF than on any other browser (especially Chrome).

lolinder 3y ago
I agree with OP that the tone is needlessly negative, but while some people are super into TST, most of us don't care about it at all. I wouldn't say that any given article on Firefox "should" mention TST, because odds are the author won't be in the group that cares.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  In an article talking about the pros and cons of Chrome and FF, it would make sense to mention cult favorites like TST. I'm not sure where you get the notion that "most of us don't care about it at all" — perhaps you have more inside info than the rest of us? Regardless, I don't care about profiles or any of this other stuff, but I don't begrudge the author for mentioning things that aren't up my alley. In my mind, when I read a list-based article, I don't expect everything to be relevant to me.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I'm not saying I would begrudge the author for mentioning TST, I'm saying that they're not obliged to mention things that they don't personally care about. I don't mind if a list of someone's favorite features has features I don't care about, nor do I mind if they neglect to mention features that I do care about. As for my information, I'm comparing the install base for TST with that of uBlock Origin (both only counting Firefox). It's not a perfect measurement, since not all Firefox users have uBO either, but it should if anything overestimate TST's relative popularity. Tree-style tabs [0] has 163,716 users. uBlock Origin [1] has 6,175,439 users (only counting Firefox). That places TST at about 2% of the install base of uBO, which is plenty small to justify my saying that most Firefox users (and prospective users) don't care about TST. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta... [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

dataflow 3y ago

> Never had problems with font rendering Okay, so what's the logical conclusion here? That the person is lying? The font rendering is very much off, some people just don't notice or don't care. Denying something others see with their own eyes doesn't help anybody.

TonyTrapp 3y ago
As a 15+ years Firefox user: What is "very much off" about Firefox' font rendering? For me it's the opposite, Chrome's rendering looks completely off to me - thin and it looks like the ClearType effect is set to 11. On the other hand, Firefox' font rendering in that screenshot looks like native Windows font rendering to me.
- rjmunro 3y ago
  The problem with "very much off" for font rendering is that it is relative to what you are used to, not relative to any actual standard font rendering. If you've been using Firefox a while, Chrome will look off. If you've been using Chrome, Firefox will look off.
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    "off" implies an error. Which browser does it correctly? Having used Vivaldi and Firefox in close succession I never noticed a difference.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      No, "off" in this case merely implies different from what you're used to. This is aesthetic preference, there's no such thing as "correct". It goes back to the old debate on Mac vs. Windows font rendering -- do you like pixel alignment or do you like letterform accuracy? There's no right answer.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago

jklinger410 3y ago

> For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. Hundred times more smooth than profiles. Except for those of us with profile specific extensions, which containers don't help with at all.

omniglottal 3y ago
How are profile-specific Chrome extensions a problem in a Firefox install?
- jklinger410 3y ago
  Let's say I have an extension that I use for work, that has a work-specific login or API key. I want to keep that plugin separate from the rest of my stuff because it's for work. You can't do that with tab containers. The profile interface for FF is archaic and hard to manage. Separate profiles was always a better solution than contained tabs.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    And what are those? I have yet to encounter anyone using a extension that contains some sort of work secrets/api. I'm not doubting it exists, but I think it's a use case which is maybe in the 0.00001% (if even that). On the other hand containers allow me to specify which ones to open on automatically and so I can use lots of different containers for different uses that I want to separate, e.g. Facebook, Gmail, HN... Something lots of people want to do, but you can't really do with profiles (well you could but it would be super annoying). Moreover I can use temporary containers so I have isolated tabs for all the general browsing (all websites where I haven't specified a specific container) with all the tracking information being deleted as soon as I close the tab.
    - jklinger410 3y ago
      > but I think it's a use case which is maybe in the 0.00001% (if even that). Actually password managers are very common, and immediately relevant to this conversation. I have a password manager for work, and one for personal. That puts us a bit higher than your pretty dismissive 0.00001% estimate. Literally the first thing that came to mind and there are many more examples. I use a tool called Junction which allows me to choose which browser opens up a link, which solves for your second issue. Isolated browsers are much better than isolated tabs.

luuurker 3y ago

(I'm replying to the original version of your comment.) How can you have different bookmarks, extensions, and maybe even a different theme (so you know you're using the right window) with containers? The answer is: you can't. Because containers and profiles are different things. That's the "sacrifice" you're asking users to make. To change the way they use browsers, to adapt to something that is useful, but not a complete replacement for the features they want. You're asking them to mix stuff and to be careful not to type personal stuff on a work container (or something like that). Yes, changing from Chrome to Firefox (and vice-versa) means that you need to make some sacrifices. I moved to Firefox and lost good profile support, have a higher battery drain, and have to deal with Firefox's inconsistencies (UI, ctrl+click behaving differently on links vs bookmarks, etc). I'm okay with the trade-off, but PR talk and positive outlooks don't make these annoyances and downsides go away.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> How can you have different bookmarks, extensions, and maybe even a different theme (so you know you're using the right window) > The answer is: you can't. Because containers and profiles are different things. If that's what you need then just use Firefox profiles then! The thing is, most people don't need that, and containers offert better ergonomics for the majority use-case (like the one described in the post). But if you still need the niche use-case, then go ahead and use a profile in Firefox too.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Most people don't use chrome profiles either, this is definitely a power user functionnality.
  - thesuitonym 3y ago
    I'm not entirely certain this is true. Maybe at one point it was, but nowadays since signing into any Google site signs you into Chrome, a lot of folks have their work and personal email addresses as profiles in Chrome.

dano 3y ago

The Firefox documentation says to Enable Containers through General Settings -> Tabs [1] but there is no such checkbox [2]. Going into about:config and changing privacy.userContext.enabled and privacy.userContext.ui.enabled to true [3] enables the checkbox in the settings page [4]. This is Firefox Version 116.0.3 under Ubuntu. I use Chrome and Firefox interchangeably so I don't have a dog in this fight. Containers aka Personalities needs to be made a first class feature in Firefox and not require the above steps to make it useful to the less tech savy end user. 1. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain... 2. https://imgur.com/a/mX1P25J https://imgur.com/a/mX1P25J 3. https://imgur.com/a/fNyRnLk https://imgur.com/a/fNyRnLk 4. https://imgur.com/a/GjxJwIP https://imgur.com/a/GjxJwIP

BeefWellington 3y ago
The checkbox is indeed there for me in 111.x. Perhaps the documentation needs an update for the latest version if it's been moved elsewhere. Edit: I just checked in 116; it appears to just be always enabled now.
heftig 3y ago
Yeah, they're enabled by default only on Nightly. Apparently they're still considered "experimental". Officially, you enable them through the MAC extension, which also adds some more UI. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... Other extensions (like Tree Style Tab) can also cause container tabs to be enabled.

ttctciyf 3y ago

> [containers are a] better solution to the problem profiles solve If this problem is persona/identity/account isolation, then yes. If you want multiple parallel settings and add-on combinations, then no. I use profiles in firefox for this specific reason. I've no idea about chrome because I don't use it, but I haven't found any problem with firefox profiles for this purpose anyhow - I just configure the desktop to start firefox with -new-instance -ProfileManager and choose the profile at startup. If I want multiple profiles simultaneously, I just start them up on different virtual desktops.

tshaddox 3y ago

> I feel this article almost do more harm than good. It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems". Your comment is roughly of the form “that detailed article lists poor solutions to the problems you’ll likely encounter when switching to Firefox, so please instead follow my detailed instructions about alternate ways to fix the problems you’ll likely encounter when switching to Firefox.” It hardly makes anything feel simpler or more enticing!

unethical_ban 3y ago

I will say the process for creating a new container per website is bad. * Create new container "target" * Open new Target container * Go to target.com * Click the container menu and choose "Always open in..." and if you have a lot of containers, scroll down to "Target" And then, you still get asked "Hey, you told us to open this in the target container, is that correct?" even though I have *explicitly* said that's exactly what I want. --- I would like a shortcut button for any site that isn't assigned to a container, where I could click the container menu and say "Create new container and assign this site to it" where it all happens at once. Boom, site isolated.

rakoo 3y ago
Use Multi-Account Containers (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...), it does exactly what you want.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  That's what I'm using. And I like its capability. But as I said, the first-time process for getting a site isolated (if you tend to isolate sites often) is cumbersome and I feel there could be a shortcut button for [create new container -> assign site to new container].
  - rakoo 3y ago
    Ah, I see; I tend to isolate all sites I trust in the same container and everything else goes in a temporary container so I mostly have one trusted container (along with one for each of Facebook, LinkedIn and Google). To add a new site to a new container, I manually edit the file (accessed through the pencil button) and add the line with the proper syntax: !*.sketchy-website.tld , My Isolation Container It allows me to define that I want that for all subdomains in the same workflow. But I have to admit it is far from easy for someone who is not already used to this.
earth2jason 3y ago

reaperducer 3y ago

The thing that keeps me from using Firefox is that it doesn't use certain standard macOS interface methods. That keeps me from using macOS's built-in keybinding system to change tabs with the touch of a function key. Every other program I use from Finder to my database manager allows me to switch tabs with one button. Firefox has no way to accomplish this, which would make it an interruption to my muscle memory and therefore my productivity. Duck allows it, so that's what I use instead of Chrome.

krackers 3y ago
There's a way to rebind keys in Firefox, but it's extremely convoluted: something about editing omni.ja. I feel like Firefox goes out of its way to make it impossible for you to do so. Not to mention that they also go out of their way to be hostile to extension developers (unlike Chrome where you can just load an unpacked extension, with Firefox they impose the arbitrary limit that it gets removed after a restart). Also they don't seem to care one bit about user experience (in the genuine sense). There's a long-standing bug open for > 10yrs that Firefox does not disable sleep when uploading or downloading files. The day that I started a long-running downloaded and came back to find that my laptop had gone to sleep before it even hit 5% was when I uninstalled Firefox in a rage.
jlokier 3y ago
I'm not sure if this fits what you want with "allows me to switch tabs with one button", but in macOS Firefox keys ⌘1 to ⌘9 (cmd-1 to cmd-9) switch to tabs 1 to 9 respectively in the current window. ⌥⌘← and ⌥⌘→ (alt-cmd-left and alt-cmd-right) switch to tabs left/right.
- reaperducer 3y ago
  That's two buttons, and different from how every single other program in my computer is configured, which is why I use Duck, instead.

deadbunny 3y ago

I disagree here as an avid user of containers. Profiles are still a better separation between personas I have my "home" profile and "work" profile in FF and they are trivially launched with `firefox -P "name"` and keep all data completely separated.

KptMarchewa 3y ago

>For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. Hundred times more smooth than profiles. Hence why no one cares about making profiles in Fx better, there is already a better solution to the problem profiles solve. I would do that if I could get separate history for a different containers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xg15 3y ago

As a happy, longtime Firefox user, have to hard disagree here. > It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems". Well yes, that was apparently the OP's feeling, along with the belief that overall, the "sacrifices" are worth it. So whether or not the issues felt important (or real) to you, they evidently were for the OP - and possibly other people who are considering switching but as of now are used to Chrome's way of doing things. > For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers. If some issue arises because a user hasn't adapted their workflow to the new software and there is in fact a different way of doing things that will result in the same features, that's a legitimate thing to point out. But as the sibling comments make clear, that doesn't seem to be the case here, as containers are missing lots of features that profiles have. > Never had problems with font rendering. That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots. > The download manager being different isn't a "problem", and even Chrome is changing it to become more like Fx's [0]. So it's not like Fx's version is "bad", just different. FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade. > I'd rather have an article on "Switching from Chrome to Firefox? Here are some tips on great features in Firefox". Like how to use the multi-account containers I mentioned. Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). On how Sidebery or other tree-style tabs can make the experience so nice. etc. If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach. It's the users who decide what the important issues of a software are, not the developers.

matsemann 3y ago
> That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots. Well, it worked on their machine as well without their fixes. Chrome's font rendering is the one that's the most off from my system behavior, but the article makes it sound like Fx has broken fonts. While it's just a preference from the author. > FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade. No, it supports that. I use it all the time. > If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach. My point was that this isn't issues so much as things just being slightly different. When framed as "problems" it however paints them negatively, as if Fx way of doing things are somehow "wrong". That's my issue with the article, not that it points these things out.

cvladan 3y ago

Exactly. I've commented on article about containers.

boredhedgehog 3y ago

> Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). What exactly does Firefox do differently? I find that the Chrome bar learns very quickly which results to prioritize, based on my input.

Dwedit 3y ago
Chrome's bar is restricted to word boundaries, while Firefox's is not. You can type three characters from the middle of a word, and Firefox will match it, while Chrome will not.

trallnag 3y ago

What about PWA?

crossroadsguy 3y ago

Yes. You need to sacrifice. Almost zero of my banking and credit card websites work flawlessly on Firefox which does so on Chrome. So that’s a huge enough sacrifice for me — the end user.

r00fus 3y ago
Name them. All of mine do fine. Anecdotes are not data.