4 ms·

Nah, 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 ago
Yeah 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 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? 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 ago
    Yea - 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 ago
      I 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 ago
      Speaking 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 ago
        My adblock on Firefox works seamlessly (0s downtime) and I dread the idea of having to navigate YouTube on any other browser.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    Immediately giving every bully whatever they want with no resistance is certainly one way to navigate life.
  - danaris 3y ago
    Well, there's also the fact that Google is currently being prosecuted for antitrust violations on both sides of the Atlantic... Do you honestly believe that it's OK for Google to just keep being anti-competitive? Or that this is a completely inevitable and unfixable state of affairs? We can, should, and will hold Google accountable for its monopolistic conduct, and this is absolutely part of that.
  - butterfi 3y ago
    If you want an experience that includes privacy violations, knock yourself out. Personally, as an end user, that is exactly what I don’t want, which is why I use Firefox
  - dspillett 3y ago
    What good does not recommending it achieve? Maintaining the status quo which as well discussed elsewhere in these threads is hardly generally desirable? My move back to FF has been slow (as mentioned already too) but I've been recommending it to others, who don't have my self-inflicted blocker, for some time. Maybe some will stop listening if I keep mentioning it, but people online I'll never meet in person are hardly a great loss in my life. The sort of people who are going to take such issue in RealLife™ are likely those just paying me attention in exchange largely for free tech support (the matter isn't likely to come up in other contexts) and they can do one anyway too.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Manifest v3 does not ban adblockers, nor does the Chrome web store
  - 01nate 3y ago
    It 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 ago
    It 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      which 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 ago
    Nowadays 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 ago
And Netflix STILL refusing to play above 720p on Firefox if you’re running Linux, which I’m sure many here are.
- realusername 3y ago
  I'll just keep pirating personally, I don't see why I should be treated worse if I'm paying.
- hellotomyrars 3y ago
  To 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 ago
One 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.

culi 3y ago

Yeah 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 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? 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 ago
  Yea - 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    Speaking 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 ago
      My adblock on Firefox works seamlessly (0s downtime) and I dread the idea of having to navigate YouTube on any other browser.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Immediately giving every bully whatever they want with no resistance is certainly one way to navigate life.
- danaris 3y ago
  Well, there's also the fact that Google is currently being prosecuted for antitrust violations on both sides of the Atlantic... Do you honestly believe that it's OK for Google to just keep being anti-competitive? Or that this is a completely inevitable and unfixable state of affairs? We can, should, and will hold Google accountable for its monopolistic conduct, and this is absolutely part of that.
- butterfi 3y ago
  If you want an experience that includes privacy violations, knock yourself out. Personally, as an end user, that is exactly what I don’t want, which is why I use Firefox
- dspillett 3y ago
  What good does not recommending it achieve? Maintaining the status quo which as well discussed elsewhere in these threads is hardly generally desirable? My move back to FF has been slow (as mentioned already too) but I've been recommending it to others, who don't have my self-inflicted blocker, for some time. Maybe some will stop listening if I keep mentioning it, but people online I'll never meet in person are hardly a great loss in my life. The sort of people who are going to take such issue in RealLife™ are likely those just paying me attention in exchange largely for free tech support (the matter isn't likely to come up in other contexts) and they can do one anyway too.
charcircuit 3y ago
Manifest v3 does not ban adblockers, nor does the Chrome web store
- 01nate 3y ago
  It 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 ago
  It 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    which 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 ago
  Nowadays 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 ago

And Netflix STILL refusing to play above 720p on Firefox if you’re running Linux, which I’m sure many here are.

realusername 3y ago
I'll just keep pirating personally, I don't see why I should be treated worse if I'm paying.
hellotomyrars 3y ago
To 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 ago

One 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.