7 ms·
Firefox out of the box indeed does not cause broken websites. However, the demographic of this forum probably will use Firefox with "Multi-Account Containers",
by krastanov 3y ago
Firefox out of the box indeed does not cause broken websites. However, the demographic of this forum probably will use Firefox with "Multi-Account Containers", "Temporary Containers", "uBlock Origin", and a few more. These are amazing for privacy and productivity, but will occasionally cause broken websites.
Source: I am a Firefox-first user who occasionally uses plugin-less Chrome because the aforementioned plugins (and "ClearURLs", "Consent-o-matic", and a few others) occasionally break websites.
- eptcyka 3y agoTemporary and Multi-Account containers do not break websites.
- squidbeak 3y agoI don't mind breaking websites, if I can fix them on my own terms.
- closewith 3y agoNah, there's plenty of examples of sites breaking on Firefox. For example, the recent degraded performance on Youtube linked to Firefox User Agent strings.
- culi 3y agoYeah but that's not on Mozilla in any way. That's just Google's anti-competitive practices. Firefox refuses to jump on Google's attempts to ban adblockers with Manifest V3 so Google wants to punish them
- behnamoh 3y agoWhat matters for the end user is the experience. If using FF will lead to a poor experience on certain websites, then why recommend it? Do people honestly believe that if they keep recommending FF, people will magically switch to FF and Google will be forced to stop its anti-competitive practices?
- munk-a 3y agoYea - because Google is just outright acting evil in a number of ways. A good example is the fact that background blur isn't supported in google meet in FF and that audio translation is similarly blocked in FF. These are just arbitrary ways that Google is degrading the FF experience because of their commanding market share.
- runarberg 3y agoI use Google meet with Firefox on Ubuntu. Background blur works for me, as well as auto-caption. Haven’t tried auto-translation though.
- culi 3y ago> What matters for the end user is the experience. If using FF will lead to a poor experience on certain websites, then why recommend it? Because holding that against Firefox is exactly what Google is counting on. And the more you recommend it the harder it is for Google to continue its anti-competitive practices. The more you fall a fool for Google's (or Microsoft a decade ago) practices, the worse the experience for everyone is in the future. Anyways, there's simple extensions that will sidestep Chrome's bs. In addition, you'll soon to be able to get an adblocked experience that you can only get on Firefox. That means less network traffic, faster loading websites, and better user privacy
- HankB99 3y agoSpeaking of adblock experience with Firefox (and uBlock origin), Google has managed to slip ads into my Youtube experience. So far I can skip them after watching the first 5 seconds so it's not too bad. Before that they had a popup that would timeout after 15s (?). At that point I tried disabling uBlock on Youtube but found the ads stacked up to much longer, so the 15s delay was more acceptable. As expected, this will probably continue to be a cat and mouse game.
- culi 3y agoMy adblock on Firefox works seamlessly (0s downtime) and I dread the idea of having to navigate YouTube on any other browser.
- charcircuit 3y agoManifest v3 does not ban adblockers, nor does the Chrome web store
- 01nate 3y agoIt doesn't ban a blockers outright but does severely hamper them. It severely limits how many filters that can exist within the plugin, and also prevents plugins from updating block lists themselves and forces those updated lists to go through the plugin store. Both of those will seriously hamper a more advanced adblock like UBlock Origin
- charcircuit 3y ago>It severely limits how many filters that can exist within the plugin The limits are 30,000 static rules and 30,000 dynamic rules. Running tens of thousands of regexs for each request can lead to a performance impact. Allowing for even higher limits may result in people having a worse experience from the browser becoming slower. The API was designed such that these limits can be increased in the future as available computation and user needs change over time. Getting extension developers to design their extensions in a way where they have to think about not slowing down the browser too much I think is a good thing and I would not call these current limits severe. >also prevents plugins from updating block lists themselves declarativeNetRequest lets rules be added and removed dynamically by the extension. >forces those updated lists to go through the plugin store The Chrome team has said that configuration can be updated outside of a store update. What the Chrome web store does not want are extensions that download and run code. This policy does not related to mv3.
- 01nate 3y ago[dead]
- culi 3y agoIt bans the ability for them to block or reroute network requests. Some adblockers might still work on some sites, but it'd mostly be an aesthetic feature. Your browser is still receiving the data, your network is still clogged, and websites are still slower.
- mvdtnz 3y agoI feel like it doesn't matter how many examples of Firefox not working properly you are faced with, you will simply respond "well that's not Mozilla's fault, that on the website developer" for each and every one. At the end of the day it's the Firefox user who is faced with the problem.
- ncallaway 3y agoI do feel that there’s a difference in kind between: “a website was built with Chrome in mind, and has problems rendering in Firefox”, and “a website was built specifically to degrade in Firefox”. If no engineering time was spent on Firefox, and it’s broken in Firefox, that’s a Firefox problem. If active engineering time was spent on _deliberately breaking_ Firefox, then yes, I don’t think that’s a Firefox problem. I think it’s a website problem at that point.
- r3d0c 3y agowhich means other than a small handful of power users most people will continue using chrome, and websites will continue prefering to put it first, continuing the cycle im curious to see what effect ublock not working as well on chrome as it will on firefox will have to the demographics, if there's no shift then that's a hurdle that has to be overcome by either firefox by some sort of engineering, google, or via legislation
- culi 3y agoNowadays there's very few websites that work on Chrome but not Firefox. Hell I'd even throw modern Safari in that. Interop 2021-2023 has made a huge difference Besides specific Google products, most everything works across all 3 major engines. In addition, Mozilla adds specific code to Firefox to counteract anti-competitive practices on specific websites
- roblh 3y agoAnd Netflix STILL refusing to play above 720p on Firefox if you’re running Linux, which I’m sure many here are.
- realusername 3y agoI'll just keep pirating personally, I don't see why I should be treated worse if I'm paying.
- hellotomyrars 3y agoTo be fair, this is not a Firefox issue. Unless you use Edge on Windows you still have the same limitation (or the windows store Netflix app).
- bee_rider 3y agoOne solution is not to use poorly coded websites. It is unfortunate that Firefox doesn’t do more to help us avoid sites programmed by devs who are too incompetent to follow standards, really.
- JohnTHaller 3y agoFirefox doesn't. But publishers de-prioritizing or being hostile to Firefox does. I keep Chrome up for VirusTotal to scan PortableApps.com releases. In Firefox, it'll throw broken ReCaptcha prompts over and over and over after a certain number of scans per day (pick the thing, next, pick the thing, next x10, etc). And that's with all extensions disabled. Possibly related: VirusTotal and ReCaptcha are owned by Google.
- babypuncher 3y agoWhen these sites break I prefer to spam their support or just not use them. If they won't support firefox then they don't deserve my patronage.
- ferbivore 3y agoIt's not patronage if you don't pay. Google would rather not have you as a user if it costs them any amount of time to support you. The relationship here is adversarial on both sides and pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone.
- babypuncher 3y agoif firefox users keep flooding their support line with problems then that means firefox users are costing them money. eventually it will be cheaper to build software that actually works.
- EE84M3i 3y agoFor those that don't know, Virustotal saves all samples and provides them to researchers.
- account42 3y agoGoogle chooses to provide those services for "free" which means thez actually do benefit from the users.
- goku12 3y ago> But publishers de-prioritizing or being hostile to Firefox does. Honestly, we should take the same stand against them. Those who are hostile towards Firefox should be publicly named and shamed for sheer incompetence and/or malice.
- jerojero 3y agoI have chrome installed. In the rare occasion that Firefox does not do a good job I just switch to chrome for that website and then go back. This is usually the case if there might be forms or something like that. It's minor enough that it doesn't bother me. Now, on the other hand, tab management is so much better with chrome and I've considered using Chrome for that reason alone. At work I do use chrome because I usually have 10-15 websites open at a time (for example I like to keep one tab group per ticket and every related item to it there). I do use simple tab groups on Firefox but it's not good enough at least to replace my workflow at work.
- andrecarini 3y agoHave you tried Tree Style Tabs [1]? [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
- quantumf 3y agoThis extension alone is sufficient justification to shift to Firefox.
- jessebeard 3y agoHey! So I finally felt inspire and made a demo of my Firefox userchrome.css and Tree Style Tabs customization and CSS on my Github here [1]. It makes it so that the Tree style tabs expand and contract over the page, showing just the favicon and number of sub-tabs when contracted, along with a few other things, like reducing border sizes and adding better indication for sound in a tab. It's pretty nifty I think; I hope someone finds it to their liking. :) https://github.com/jessebeard/firefox_settings https://github.com/jessebeard/firefox_settings
- lcof 3y agoI wish tab groups to be implemented natively. Or that extensions can manage the tab bar instead of using a sidebar. That’s the best experience we can get so far, but it does not feel right to me.
- hutzlibu 3y ago"Firefox out of the box indeed does not cause broken websites" .. for you. I regulary ran across something that does not work or has a broken style. And I know how to turn UO off. And why should that be a surprise? FF has way less manpower than Chrome. (And even fired lots of engineers, to raise the CEO bonus) Chrome leads the way and probably the vast majority developes for chrome and with chrome dev tools. So most of the time FF works, but not always. And performance is just worse, but not noticable on a desktop and on mobile it is offset by the working adblock. Meaning perceived performance is usually better, because ads are blocked, unlike in chrome mobile.
- beeboobaa 3y agoThis has absolutely not been my experience. Must be a different extension you installed.
- lcof 3y agoThen we can compare brave and firefox in terms of speed. I don’t see any noticeable performance difference (I use both on linux and macos)
- hutzlibu 3y agoThen ... maybe have a look at some numbers: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Firefox-Chrome-109-Benchmarks https://www.phoronix.com/news/Firefox-Chrome-109-Benchmarks And sadly it can be worse, with my quite complex app, that I absolutely did not tailor for chrome, but gone out of my way to also support FF - the result is that chrome is just 3x faster.
- bradly 3y ago> Firefox out of the box indeed does not cause broken websites. There are definitely websites that don't work with Firefox out of the box. Just one example that annoys me is https://mtgarena-support.wizards.com https://mtgarena-support.wizards.com. "Firefox users: Firefox's Enhanced Tracking Protection may interfere with Sign In. Temporarily disable it in Firefox Privacy Settings to load the sign in screen."
- nijave 3y agoYeah, I find more broken websites out of the box with Firefox than Chrome (even disabling extensions/ad blockers) I use Chrome at work (corporate provisioned device) and Firefox at home so both get a good amount of usage
- realusername 3y agoIt's probably third party cookies but not for long, Chrome will also remove them next year so they will have to do something about it.
- Propelloni 3y agoAre you sure that your tracking protection is set to "Standard"? You'd have to change it manually to stricter protection. I know of several sites that break if you go beyond Standard, but none if you don't.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoAlternatively read as: “We are actively hostile to user-chosen browser privacy settings such that we develop our application to coach our users to turn these settings off as a necessary means of accessing their account”. I guess that’s what they call a death spiral given that the behavior discourages me from attending any would-have-been-DCI events.
- hedora 3y agoThere is a filter list for ublock origin that bypasses such things (and cookie consent popups). That’s not “working out of the box”, but leads to a much less broken experience than chrome (especially with the manifest v3 BS).
- voidfunc 3y ago> However, the demographic of this forum probably will use Firefox with "Multi-Account Containers", "Temporary Containers" Never even heard of these... hmm
- acchow 3y agoIt’s probably the ublock origin breaking websites and not the multi-account containers, right?
- n3storm 3y agoShouldn't we say "Some sites break user browsing experience"?
- SoftTalker 3y agoI use Firefox with uBlock Origin. I don't use containers but I do use profiles. Yes some sites are "broken" with uBlock Origin. I don't find it to be many, however. I run into paywalls much more often than I do problems with my browser settings.
- jcfrei 3y agoThere's some more you should do to increase privacy: Disable Firefox sending each keystroke into the address bar to all the numerous search engines (includes google). Best to just enable the separate bar for search and disable search suggestions entirely.
- kube-system 3y ago> Firefox out of the box indeed does not cause broken websites. Firefox doesn't cause broken websites. Websites developers that target only Chrome cause websites to inadvertently become broken in Firefox.
- hyperthesis 3y agohttps://wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish Be evil
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> Source: I am a Firefox-first user who occasionally uses plugin-less Chrome because the aforementioned plugins (and "ClearURLs", "Consent-o-matic", and a few others) occasionally break websites. I have good luck just using a private window, since that has no extensions by default. Bonus: It's really fast; ctrl-l ctrl-c ctrl-shift-p ctrl-c enter
- 01nate 3y agoI have had sites that are definitely broken in Firefox even after a stock install with every last toggle/extension/script blocker turned off. It's fairly rare, but there are a slowly growing list of sites that don't behave properly under Firefox but work in Chromium.
- rebolek 3y agoI always read that some sites don't work with Firefox but the writers never mentions which sites are broken. So I'm curious, which sites are broken in vanilla FF?
- linux_is_nice 3y agoOne of them happens to be the educational site https://www.deltamath.com/ https://www.deltamath.com/
- gerdesj 3y agoOK so what is broken? The homepage comes up fine and a few clicks seem fine. Do I have to sign up to see issues?
- gsej 3y agoI use a home video appliance called camect which is accessed through a web interface which explicitly only works in chromium browsers. Oddly, I often find that the bbc news page doesn't load images on the first attempt in Firefox, but always does in Chrome.
- 01nate 3y ago[dead]
- croes 3y agoThe question is if the problem is Firefox or the webpage. Remember when Google killed the Edge render engine per YouTube problems?
- D13Fd 3y ago
- rytor718 3y agoYeah im still a bit surprised that Github doesnt work in firefox for me. It wont load a repository page, its just blank with nothing but the navigation on the page. This happens after turning off all plugins. dont know if github has made it so only chrome works but thats a pretty major site for firefox to not work with.
- MrDrMcCoy 3y agoMight have something stuck in your profile that's causing that. Wiping your profile can usually fix that, even if you re-sync your preferences.
- geysersam 3y agoGitHub works with Firefox. I use that combination every day.
- callalex 3y agoThat’s something weird with your setup, GitHub works just fine on Firefox for everyone else.
- tekmate 3y agoi also use ublock matrix so i get to play "which third party hosts are needed to make this page work" for every new website
- dheera 3y agoNot sure about the others but uBlock Origin allows you to disable it for specific websites and remember the setting.
- jszymborski 3y agoI have two profiles for firefox dorkily called "hax0r mode" and "normie mode", each with different theming so I can tell the diff. I try to do as much as I can in hax0r mode, which has uBlock O, NoScript, auto cookie delete and a few other privacy settings like no 3rd party cookies. Sites usually start pretty broken before I tweak NoScript for them, which I'm OK with. Occasionally, sites are obstinate and I need to use Normie mode (e.g. for Maps) Normie mode just has uBlock O, containers. I really have zero problems with sites breaking here.
- wkat4242 3y agoMulti-account-containers doesn't really break websites in my opinion. It's just like running a separate browser (in fact it's simply a firefox profile under the hood). What can go wrong is if you've set a certain site to always open in a certain container and another site redirects you to this site. This can happen with Identity Providers like Okta, ADFS etc. They will then open in a different container (the assigned one) and lose context. Especially microsoft services have an annoying habit of redirecting through 25 different URLs on every sign-in. But if configured correctly it's a godsend, you can use this tool to sign into multiple MS tenants at the same time, something with chrome and not even Edge can do right now (switching teams between multiple tenants is a nightmare). But I don't think it's the multi accounts containers at fault here, it's the user. Just don't do that :P
- ijhuygft776 3y agoconsent-o-matic lets a lot of them through.... I need to find an alternative that works better
- ijhuygft776 3y agoI also had problems recently with an online notary service... they forced me to use Chrome... Not the same problem, but I wonder when faxes will disappear... For example, Progressive Insurance wanted me fax, mail pictures or bring them in person... email didn't work... Of course they didn't have a safe way to transfer them digitally but I would not care if everyone in the world saw those emails. The useless requirements that they set just proves that they don't understand technology.
- yetanother12345 3y agoIn general, browsers do not cause broken websites This, again, can be restated as incompetent developers cause broken websites (!) ("... do not attribute to bad faith that which can be explained by stupidity")
- spac 3y agoyou might want to try about:profiles create a new profile and use that for testing
- DavideNL 3y ago> ”who occasionally uses plugin-less Chrome” Exactly, simply use a second “plugin-less” FireFox profile. And if you really need a Chromium browser, Brave is a better choice than Google Chrome (for privacy reasons…)
- LtdJorge 3y agoZero broken websites here, and I use those and more extensions. I also use FF on Android and iPadOS (although that's a Safari reskin, it provides some niceties on top like send tab to device).