|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Is there any way to have specific Bookmarks open in a container? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ That extension should allow you to assign specific websites into specific containers.
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
Nalin posted:https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ Thanks - I had that extension anyway but couldn't figure out how to get them to open sites in a container by default, but I had hidden the menu bar icon moved to my overflow menu and didn't see the different options there. Sorted now, cheers.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Is there any way to have specific Bookmarks open in a container? Containerise works too.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Storm One posted:Containerise works too. I'll try this too, one of my links gives an error when opened by default in a container but works fine when loaded again with the tab already in a container. I take it I can remove the Facebook Container extension if I have either of these other extensions?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 08:08
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:I take it I can remove the Facebook Container extension if I have either of these other extensions? Containers are a big confusing mess so I don't know how to answer that. The reason I use Containerise instead of the official Mozilla extension is because the latter didn't play nicely with Temporary Containers for some reason I can't recall, and I needed something to pin some sites to permanent containers.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 12:03
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:I take it I can remove the Facebook Container extension if I have either of these other extensions? Yes, and get the same effect by making a new container for facebook and setting facebook.com to always use that. Facebook Container is basically just a single-purpose, easy-to-use version of the bigger container extensions.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Yes, and get the same effect by making a new container for facebook and setting facebook.com to always use that. Well, not entirely. Facebook Container does some extra stuff. quote:How does this compare to the Firefox Multi-Account Containers extension?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Nalin posted:Well, not entirely. Facebook Container does some extra stuff. Welp, reinstalled that one.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
So I foolishly went to the Page Info window for youtube.com and under Permissions chose to block cookies. Now Youtube is stuck in a loop of the "before you continue" cookie selection page, and the Page Info window is now for consent.youtube.com which is apparently different, so I can't set the setting back. Any idea how I access those settings for a page I can't go to?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:So I foolishly went to the Page Info window for youtube.com and under Permissions chose to block cookies. Now Youtube is stuck in a loop of the "before you continue" cookie selection page, and the Page Info window is now for consent.youtube.com which is apparently different, so I can't set the setting back. Options -> Privacy & Security -> scroll down to Cookies & Site Data -> Manage Exceptions button
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Options -> Privacy & Security -> scroll down to Cookies & Site Data -> Manage Exceptions button Amazing, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
lol, 2 years after firefox drops all support for RSS, google might be adding a RSS reader into chrome someone at mozilla hq is frantically looking looking for the undo button right now
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Klyith posted:lol, 2 years after firefox drops all support for RSS, google might be adding a RSS reader into chrome I still contribute in ruining Mozilla's sync service with the Live Bookmarks addon. I have all my RSS feeds in my bookmarks toolbar and that will never change.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
I found out that they've dropped FTP support and I'm so annoyed. The kind of things I'm into often have FTP links in web pages and it's so annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
Anyone has trouble with Messenger recently? I have it as a Pinned Tab and I am regularly getting situations where the notification "glow" won't display, as well as conversations not properly marking as Read once I go into them.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
"You've heard of death by a thousand cuts? [This redesign] is the opposite of that..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cyxdu0EwIk I know there was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about Quantum or whatever they're calling this, but I've been using it via Developer Edition and it hasn't materially impacted my workflow so hooray for this? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Why does Firefox seem to keep a totally separate list of add-ons for my Android vs PC? I'm signed in to both, it's just a pain in the rear end dialing in all the settings again on the phone, and having things like AdBlock exceptions not carry over.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
I'm very miffed when Mozilla mentions heatmaps as a way of tracking clicks, but Mozilla is also the ones who hid the Downloads window (which is still not a tab  ) behind 3 clicks and the compact option behind 4 clicks.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:I'm very miffed when Mozilla mentions heatmaps as a way of tracking clicks, but Mozilla is also the ones who hid the Downloads window (which is still not a tab  This gets the Downloads window down to two clicks - click the Download icon, then click "Show all downloads": 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Why does Firefox seem to keep a totally separate list of add-ons for my Android vs PC? I'm signed in to both, it's just a pain in the rear end dialing in all the settings again on the phone, and having things like AdBlock exceptions not carry over. Doesn't even matter when the majority of the addons are nonfunctional ever since the big Android version refactor anyways. I'm still waiting on Cookie Autodelete to be supported. e: for gently caress's sake Mozilla, I just checked the add-ons site and it's the same sixteen that's been there since the big update. You've had what, seven god-damned months to deliver on your promise of support? isndl fucked around with this message at 21:17 on May 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
IAmKale posted:I know there was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about Quantum or whatever they're calling this, but I've been using it via Developer Edition and it hasn't materially impacted my workflow so hooray for this? The reason for the wailing and gnashing is mostly the compact mode thing. But also, it's getting boos because it's a completely useless redesign. It hasn't impacted your workflow because it's not really changing anything of importance. It's a new skin simply so they can say they have a new skin. People don't like their cheese being moved. OTOH Photon *also* got a ton of wailing and gnashing pre-release. But then it came in the same package as the Quantum browser engine which was a huge improvement. So people stopped bitching about it real fast because the browser was so much better. Photon had more actual changes, but many of them were real improvements IMO.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
I just want to open things in the background in a tab queue again on Android. I subscribe to several mailing lists and I have stopped reading most of them on mobile because I can't just tap tap tap my way through the email and then go read all the interesting links at once. No, I end up tapping, switching back to email, tapping again, switching back to email, etc. I gave up and save them for when I'm at a desktop.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
Klyith posted:People don't like their cheese being moved. Or renamed for no drat reason.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:Anyone has trouble with Messenger recently? Yes, I have this issue, its most likely something to do with having ad-blockers and privacy ad-dons and such running. They want you to use the desktop app because that way you cant easily block them. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2021 08:04
|
|
|
IAmKale posted:Would you be interested in knowing that you can still always show the download icon even with the UI refresh? It really is unfortunate that an asymptotic amount of add-ons have jumped onto Mozillas flat design language and also feel that it's absolutely mandatory that counter gets added, especially when they make it so that it can't be removed.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2021 12:24
|
|
|
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2021/05/27/manifest-v3-update/quote:After discussing this with several content blocking extension developers, we have decided to implement DNR and continue maintaining support for blocking webRequest. Our initial goal for implementing DNR is to provide compatibility with Chrome so developers do not have to support multiple code bases if they do not want to. With both APIs supported in Firefox, developers can choose the approach that works best for them and their users.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Explain that to me like I'm a 6 year old please 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Explain that to me like I'm a 6 year old please mozilla is not joining google in sabotaging the core function that adblockers need to block ads
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Google is making changes to Chrome's extension API that gimps how much access extensions like adblockers have to incoming HTTP requests, making it harder (impossible?) to block certain things. Originally Mozilla said they would just follow along with the change to maintain extension compatibility, but people got mad so now they're going to implement both versions of the API basically, so that Firefox extensions can still adblock properly and cross-browser extensions can use the limited new functionality if they want. There's slightly more info in the original FAQ from when they first announced it: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/09/03/mozillas-manifest-v3-faq/
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
"Blocking webRequest" is an API for filtering every single request to any URL. Basically, an extension can register itself as interested, and then whenever anything opens any URL, FF calls a function in the extension with the URL as a parameter, and waits for it to return. This is incredibly powerful, since the addon can block anything it doesn't like [1], rewrite any request [2], or completely take over requests matching specific patterns [3]. It's got some glaring downsides, though. First of all, this is an incredibly powerful position to be in: You really, really have to trust any code that gets to do this sort of total control. It also has some performance downsides. The big one is the "blocking" part: Every single request has to wait for the extension function(s) to return before they can continue, which can add up. It's also apparently a bit messy in what happens when multiple extensions have differing opinions on an URL; as I understand it FF resolves conflicts by just stopping the other extensions as soon as the fastest one with an opinion has returned. A while ago, Chrome added a completely different API for adblockers ("declarativeNetRequest"). It's simple enough: Extensions can register a list of simple patterns to allow or block, and then chrome itself does the filtering. This resolves the speed and security issues, but doesn't allow the more interesting weirdness from webRequest - and some people think the limits on block list length are too low. Firefox and Chrome both support a general standard for how to write extensions ("Manifest"; they're phasing in version 3). This is nice - it means a number of extensions can easily work on every desktop browser. However, Chrome/Google has decided to turn off webRequest, while Firefox does currently not support declarativeNetRequest. This announcement is Mozilla saying they'll add DNR without removing webRequest ("until there’s a better solution which covers all use cases we consider important "), which allows both existing FF extensions and unmodified chrome ones to work. Which is nice - there was a reasonable worry that they'd just do like Google and replace one with the other. [1] This is how adblockers traditionally work: They have a configurable list of patterns to block, and try matching every URL against every pattern to determine if it gets through [2] Useful for extensions like Https Everywhere - just rewrite http: urls to https: unless there's a reason not to [3] Which can be used for things like adding support for gopher:// or redirecting certain URLs to external apps
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
Things will go back to how things used to be, many years ago. Firefox used to have the best ad-blocking in that it consistently blocked more ads and it could even block ads inside flash animations and other NPAPIs, just as an example.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 10:31
|
|
|
Klyith posted:mozilla is not joining google in sabotaging the core function that adblockers need to block ads Don't forget Apple, Safari has been in lovely adblocking mode for a long while now. Computer viking posted:It's got some glaring downsides, though. First of all, this is an incredibly powerful position to be in: You really, really have to trust any code that gets to do this sort of total control. It also has some performance downsides. The big one is the "blocking" part: Every single request has to wait for the extension function(s) to return before they can continue, which can add up. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-456134855 gorhill posted:Use privacy/performance as Trojan arguments to rationalize reducing user agency over what all bloated web sites throw at people's user agents. That new declarativeNetRequest API seriously reduces what blockers can do, to the point they will become distinguishable only by their UI, not their capabilities. As a user, I personally wouldn't accept browsing the world wild web without the advanced features in uBO, I find this unthinkable. Storm One fucked around with this message at 12:08 on May 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:It's got some glaring downsides, though. First of all, this is an incredibly powerful position to be in: You really, really have to trust any code that gets to do this sort of total control. this is silly because to play some games i still need to have the pedo gates OS installed, and my phone either comes with a google os or doesn't really do anything at all these days. they are in a far more powerful position than the browser adblocker and i trust them less than <that guy on github> these days, but thanks to monopolies i don't really have much choice sometimes
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
This is very much a "multiple things can be true at once" sort of situation. Is it possible for addons using webrequest to slow things down? Unquestionably. Does ublock origin actually make requests slower for the typical user? Not in any meaningful way. Is google in a position of near absolute power over everything you do in Chrome? Of course, and that is a bit worrying. Can an addon that has suddenly been taken over by Moldovan hackers use webrequest to do a lot more harm than without it? Yeah, probably?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:This is very much a "multiple things can be true at once" sort of situation. I think most people would happily cut off a finger to continue blocking YouTube ads and other obnoxious poo poo, let alone deal with slowness. As long as the extensions have to report that they’re using this powerful API there’s no issue imo.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:Things will go back to how things used to be, many years ago. I mean, it still does have the best ad-blocking. uBlock Origin in Firefox can uncloak CNAME fuckery and it can selectively block inline scripts. Plus it runs part of the code in WebAssembly for extra speed.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:This is very much a "multiple things can be true at once" sort of situation. Nah. Basically, the performance issue isn't a thing outside of computer-science hypothetical land. Yes, if you create a million filters that do nothing but interrupt requests it's bad for performance. But for content blocking, the time needed to parse filters is far lower than the time it takes to load the garbage being blocked. As for security, the simple fact is that all extensions are a security risk. If an extension can modify the content of webpages, it can gently caress over users. The website of a major health insurance provider got compromised by an extension that was popular with web designers. It didn't use WebRequest to do it. Google isn't on a crusade to remove or lock down the text modification & insertion features of extensions. Moreover, fixing the most exploitable parts of webRequest was always possible: quote:In an email on Monday, Chalupowski said that she had been able to confirm that her old proof-of-concept no longer works on the latest version of Chromium. She said that Cross Origin Read Blocking (CORB) now appears to be blocking requests, and that code for stripping headers no longer produced log entries to indicate that it’s working. She said she wasn’t sure whether this was related to the addition of features like Strict Site Isolation or something else. Finally, here's how you know that it's mostly about ads and the security part is a fig leaf: Chrome's declarativeNetRequest doesn't allow wildcards. That's a targeted gently caress-you to adblocking.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Oh chrome is absolutely out to mess with adblockers, and not to be trusted here. That does not mean that webrequest couldn't be improved, just that declarativeNetRequest is not the right answer.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Will Chromium browsers all have this poo poo or just Chrome?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Will Chromium browsers all have this poo poo or just Chrome? Normal Chrome and Edge. Google is even keeping it available & supported in Chrome for Enterprise, so there will be upstream code for it in chromium. Vivaldi, Opera, and Brave have said they'll continue to support normal webRequest. Klyith fucked around with this message at 21:09 on May 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:56
|
|