6 ms·
I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions, unlike the locked
by freedomben 2y ago
I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions, unlike the locked-down and hobbled Chromium ecosystem. I suspect they do realize this because they've been really leaning into extensions recently, but over the years I've worried that Mozilla's committment to Firefox isn't as serious as I would like.
Regardless, I'd love to see this give FF a big bounce in the stats. Something to reinforce that there are people out here that really want manifest v2, badly enough to switch!
- bigtimesink 2y agoIf this doesn't give FF a noticeable bounce, FF really is a lost cause.
- ToDougie 2y agoFirefox has some weird slowness with DNS that I have troubleshot to death. I still use it for almost everything, but sometimes I'll have an entire day of 30s page loading times.
- recursive 2y agoApologies if this is elementary, but have you tried turning off DoH? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/dns-over-https#w_off https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/dns-over-https#w_off
- edoceo 2y agoI put this setting in ages ago on my FF profile and haven't seen DNS lag. My biggest DNS lag was before I used PiHole and was relying on my router, which upstream to 8.8.8.8. I've just assumed that little thing was overloaded or that Comcast was just having a "hiccup".
- jamesgeck0 2y agoI see glacial DNS resolution regularly when hitting the AWS authorization page with DoH disabled on my company's VPN. Resolves instantly in Chrome.
- joecool1029 2y agoThis is almost certainly a fragmentation issue caused by lower MTU and broken path MTU on the VPN. Drop the system to 1280 to troubleshoot, if things work immediately there's the culprit, raise it up til it doesn't or don't, I keep my VPN's at 1280. EDIT: I do not know why its an issue with firefox and not chrome, it's likely QUIC fucking up since it cant fragment and needs to fall back to TCP, chrome is probably error handling this better... dropping the MTU that low will make the fallback explicit: https://blog.apnic.net/2019/03/04/a-quick-look-at-quic/ https://blog.apnic.net/2019/03/04/a-quick-look-at-quic/ EDIT2: Could also try disabling QUIC, instructions here: https://developers.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-one/policies/gateway/http-policies/http3/ https://developers.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-one/policies/ga...
- Yeul 2y agoI wonder how much time not experiencing advertising on the internet saves? Whenever someone says how fast Chrome is I think about this.
- guappa 2y agoDisable DNS over HTTPS I guess.
- Underphil 2y agoSame here. Tends to be pretty inconsistent. DNS-over-HTTP(s) definitely disabled. 30s is a lot more than I've experienced, but there are times where it clearly struggles to look things up.
- drdec 2y agoMy problem with extensions is it's another development team to trust and monitor. I need to know if the extension has been sold, taken over by a new lead, etc.
- ar_lan 2y agoAfter the Great Suspender debacle, I feel the same. I try to limit plugins/extensions to as many minimal use cases as possible.
- freedomben 2y agoYeah that's definitely fair, I have the same concern. Currently I've reduced my extensions to just a few that I either trust (like gorhill's) or that I wrote myself. But I think it would be huge if Mozilla built out the tooling needed to keep a better monitor on them. It's an extremely hard problem to be sure though.
- kelvinjps10 2y agoThey already did? The have a list pf extension that are monitored by them as well authoring a few ones
- lotsofpulp 2y agoThis is why I prefer Safari's content blockers. As far as I understand, there is no risk of content blockers sending out information.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nikisweeting 2y agoLuckily there's an extension for that: [Under New Management | Chrome Web Store](https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/under-new-management/jppepdecgemgbgnjnnfjcmanlleioikj https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/under-new-managemen...)
- bdcravens 2y agoPart of what the DOJ is seeking against Google would severely impact Mozilla financially however, as they want to ban them from paying to be the default search engine.
- bad_user 2y agoWhich is why Mozilla are getting desperate to diversify their revenue.
- Mailtemi 2y agoMozilla diversifies by increasing the CEO's salary for nothing. Wiki: In 2020, after returning to the position of CEO, Baker's salary was more than $3 million. In 2021, her salary rose again to more than $5 million, and again to nearly $7 million in 2022. The new CEO brings computing for AI money bleed that almost no one wants.
- bad_user 2y agoI don't agree with Mozilla paying that huge CEO salary, but… Do you know Firefox's handy new offline translation feature? That's AI a well. And Firefox is the only browser that doesn't leak your web page when translating it. There are plenty of other uses for AI, such as describing images without alt-text for the blind, or summarization. I, for one, want AI in my browser, you can't really say that “nobody wants it”, when many people clearly do.
- badgersnake 2y agoGoogle will just slip in a few more “improvements” to Gmeet, Gmail and YouTube that happen to not work or perform very poorly on Firefox.
- bravoetch 2y agoIt would be enough if Apple realized the same thing. They're in a position to have the best browser, and coast along ignoring the opportunity.
- freedomben 2y agoUnfortunately this would only be helpful to Apple customers, which itself comes with significant downsides IMHO. I'd much prefer a cross-platform solution
- jordanb 2y ago> I hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions, The problem is that Mozilla's customers are not Firefox's users. Mozilla's customer is Google. They pay Mozilla to exist and they are paying Mozilla to intentionally drive Firefox into the ground. I think it's pretty clear that the TOS change basically coincided with the removal of manifest v2 change in chrome.
- AstralSerenity 2y agoMy understanding is Mozilla contracted its footprint substantially to remain sustainable in a future without Google's monetary contribution.
- drpossum 2y agoThen they wouldn't be throwing money into open firepits on trash like a VPN service or how to comply with Google's advertising decisions. Then they would let people contribute money to the browser (instead of to Mozilla Foundation which goes to enabling aforementioned trash fires) and to the salary of a multi-million dollar CEO after laying off developer staff and hiring more C-suite assistants. Mozilla is a bad organization in every sense, a bad steward of Firefox, and the best thing that could happen is they do have their funding cut, they go out of business forever, and Firefox finds a good home chosen by the community.
- AstralSerenity 2y agoI imagine their VPN service is financially viable if they've still stuck with it this long. Aside from that, they've just about cut all other initiatives aside from "Firefox and AI". The latter gives me pause, but hopefully they really are more focused moving forward. I think Mozilla has done alright, but I agree the folks is in charge of their business direction and especially PR are abysmal. Personally, I wish a company like Proton was at the helm.
- bilalq 2y agoIsn't Mozilla's VPN just a thin UI over Mullvad's servers? I don't think it costs them much and probably brings in some decent revenue.
- JasserInicide 2y agoI hope Mozilla realizes (and still cares) that they have a huge opportunity here to be the power-browser where you can get awesome extensions Don't worry, they won't. They have more important endeavors like funding some new bullshit virtue signalling campaign and paying huge CEO bonuses.
- glenstein 2y agoIt's like a never-ending horde of zombies that comes in and makes this cheap shot over and over. My understanding is the CEO makes slightly more than 1% of their revenues. And it's actually low compared to the typical tech CEO. But what's the story of cause and effect here such that if they'd invested 1% of their revenue differently, they would jump from 3% market share back to 30% or wherever they were previously? Once you ask these questions out loud, it's clear that people aren't thinking through the steps of the argument.
- phatfish 2y ago[flagged]
- Aerroon 2y agoCan you install your own personal extensions without getting permission from Mozilla yet? Or are they still banning that? Because that change drove me away from Firefox.
- efilife 2y agoYou mean inatalling from local files? This isn't ever going away, we have to test what we develop somehow
- eviks 2y agoIt already went away, you need a special Firefox version to do that (that's the somehow part)
- hipsterstal1n 2y agoThis is just flat out wrong. I am on regular Firefox and can install extensions from files. See: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/find-and-install-add-ons-add-features-to-firefox https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/find-and-install-add-on... and look under "How do I find and install add-ons?" > "For Advanced User"
- eviks 2y agoNope > You can also install a signed add-on from a file This means that unlike Chrome Firefox doesn't support the simple case of downloading an extension repo, tweaking a few things, and loading it
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- downrightmike 2y agoFF is supporting V2 and V3 on purpose, so they are doing what you want
- xnx 2y agoTruly the best angle Firefox could take would be to be stronger pro user: block ads, resist fingerprinting, hide annoyances, etc.