|
Yeah, Firefox has containers, which works for me.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Klyith posted:I would guess more like the fast profile switcher that chrome and chromium-based browsers all have. Those you can switch profile without a full restart. I don't see what's so different about "switching profile" like that vs. just starting a new window with the other profile (either with the button in about :profiles or with the firefox -P command). You can then close the first window, or not, as you see fit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:I don't see what's so different about "switching profile" like that vs. just starting a new window with the other profile (either with the button in about :profiles or with the firefox -P command). You can then close the first window, or not, as you see fit. Oh poo poo wait a minute, you can start a new window with profile #2 and the existing session with profile #1 is still going? I did not know that! (Haven't used multiple profiles myself in forever, but that was not a thing you could do back then.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Oh poo poo wait a minute, you can start a new window with profile #2 and the existing session with profile #1 is still going? I did not know that! Yeah, normally Firefox won't let multiple instances of itself run at once. So it's just a profile lock?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
Quackles posted:Yeah, normally Firefox won't let multiple instances of itself run at once. So it's just a profile lock? There's a command-line switch called --new-instance that's implicitly called when using the "Open profile in new window" from about :profiles, which itself explicitly calls -P <name>.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:It won't let multiple instances of itself run with the same profile, because that leads unavoidably to race conditions unless there's something that process that muxes things together (which may be what Chromium does, I don't know). Nice!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
I used this guide :> https://www.groovypost.com/howto/create-and-manage-multiple-profiles-in-firefox-2/ and i am able to have seperate windows open at the same time each using a different profile. I did manually install firefox into 4 different folders and changed stuff in the about : config thing also. i did it years ago and it just somehow still works. But i'm pretty sure that i used that guide. to open a new window using a different profile i have to select the iCon on the desktop with the relevant profile name and it will open a new window with that profile loaded. I also changed the firefox icons to help distinguish each firefox profile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
I was setting up Firefox on a new work PC and noticed a couple things that weren't there before:
I know there's a lot of bellyaching about Mozilla and Firefox in this thread (it's basically what it's for), and though I don't love every change that Mozilla imposes on Firefox, it still rocks. I'd also bet that its reputation as an ad-blocking, at-least-configurable-as-a-privacy-respecting browser is one of very few pressures on Google to keep Chrome from killing off its latent ad-blocking ability. doctorfrog fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Sep 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
doctorfrog posted:[*]Containers are now available only with an extension, published and maintained by Firefox. Since I use containers every day, and Cookie Autodelete requires this function, I hope it's something that stays maintained and up to date. The core functionality that the extension uses is in firefox, not the extension -- containerized cookies and storage is also what they use to do the 3rd party cookie isolation stuff. So I expect that the extension will stick around (and if Mozilla abandons it, should be easily taken over by community). doctorfrog posted:I know there's a lot of bellyaching about Mozilla and Firefox in this thread (it's basically what it's for), and though I don't love every change that Mozilla imposes on Firefox, it still rocks. Certainly every new innovation from the Google sheep-shearing department makes Mozilla look a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
Is this extension legit? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-with-jdownloader/ It's for downloading via jDownloader 2 instead of Firefox, a program I added because a file-hosting website kept having its downloads fail. The jDownloader 2 program didn't work, so I switched to Free Download Manager. Anyway, the Firefox extension said that I had to download files for my operating system and click install.bat to update the registry for it to work, and I did that, nothing happened except a command prompt saying that the registry was changed, and then I clicked uninstall.bat and it said, paraphrased, that it was changed back. It didn't leave anything under <username>/AppData, <username>/Documents, or C:\ProgramData. Now I'm thinking about doing a system restore overnight just to be 100% sure. galenanorth fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Sep 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
I used it for a bit with no ill effects, but I just don't like having to run a service outside Firefox, feels weird. I got rid of it, again, with no ill effects. That I could tell, anyway. E: sorry, I'm referring specifically to Free Download Manager, not jdownloader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2023 03:06
|
|
|
I can't vouch for that jdownloader one, but it's a legit thing for extensions that want to interface with an external program need to install extra stuff for that. The webextensions sandboxing makes it impossible for an extension to run something like "jdownloader.exe -dl filez.com/big.zip" directly. For ex I use the extension open with that requires having python and installing a python script to set up. tl;dr I think you're fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
JDownloader itself is legitimate so I don't see why its extension wouldn't be
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:JDownloader itself is legitimate so I don't see why its extension wouldn't be The extension isn't made by the Jdownloader people. Can't trust that sort of thing, that's how they getcha. (OTOH it seems perfectly fine, it's just a repack of an extension that can open / download links with arbitrary external programs.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
Jdownloader can monitor clipboard for supported links. No need for extension except the captha "MyJDownloader" one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 11:29
|
|
|
It used to be that when I opened a thread page with tweets, they would automatically embed, but now I have to individually click on each link. Embeds still work on older versions of Firefox. Is there a setting somewhere I can change to bring embeds back?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2023 13:59
|
|
|
Are the embeds for x.com rather than twitter.com? If so, its not you, its the code for embeds only working with twitter.com links.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
I think on a fresh install Firefox will have its built in tracking protection breaking tweet embeds. The shield thing on the left of the url bar. I think that's still a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2023 14:10
|
|
|
It is for my browser (came with my copy of Linux Mint). Would turning off enhanced protection fix it, or is that not advisable? Could also very well be X breaking something too. e: Yep, that fixed it. I don't think I have to worry about trackers on SA, but who knows what sort of shenanigans Jeff is up to 
F_Shit_Fitzgerald fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Sep 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
If you want to see tweet embeds on the forums, there is no way around turning off enhanced tracking protection for the forums. It will still be enabled on other sites. The fact that you had embeds on older installs means it was disabled there too. It's a purely optional privacy thing. It can be replaced with other addons that allow for more granular exceptions if you like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
 I have enhanced tracking protection on and have had it since forever and embedded tweets work just fine ("fine", they're slow garbage and I hate them). I have no clue why people say that combo doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
Its literal intended function is to stop websites from making cross site requests to other websites that are found on the Disconnect list, which contains twitter.com and the related twitter domain names required for embeds. If it is not blocking embeds for you, it is broken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Ruflux posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 06:23
|
|
|
I am currently using Ad-nauseam as my ad blocker and things work well. Also using sponsorblock. Starting with that because yesterday I synced my profile to a second profile on my mother's computer to get some surfing done on vacation. It ended up in a strange state where youtube ads play with a black screen, but with normal audio and the normal interface. Anybody have any idea what could be going on? The ads are blocked successfully by my laptop on the same laptop. The laptop I recently wiped and synced the profile without customizing anything. The ads play normally on my tablet's yt app on the same network.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:I am currently using Ad-nauseam as my ad blocker and things work well. Also using sponsorblock. YouTube changed something to break ad blocking, and the filter lists / your filter lists in your blocker haven’t updated yet. Your sync probably doesn’t sync setting for either of those extensions. ublock Origin is better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Even ublock origin was having issues earlier this month, but they seem to be back on top of it. Haven't seen an ad slip through since.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Even ublock origin was having issues earlier this month, but they seem to be back on top of it. Haven't seen an ad slip through since. This isn't really ublock per se -- the heaviest lifting in terms of keeping poo poo like youtube constantly updated comes from third-party filter lists like EasyList & Adguard. And those are used by other adblockers too. So if ublock isn't working on youtube and switching to a different adblocking extension fixed it, it was probably just because a freshly installed extension got fresh filters. (Also ad-nauseum is just Ublock Origin plus a function that spoofs ad views / trackers.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
You should learn how to manually update your filters. uBlock settings -> Filter lists -> Purge all caches -> Update now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
Is there a good addon for downloading video from random streaming video players?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Is there a good addon for downloading video from random streaming video players? Compared to yt-dlp, no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
Not an addon, but generally either JDownloader or yt-dlp will handle most everything just by pasting the url
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
And if yt-dlp doesn't like the link, sometimes The Stream Detector can help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
Did firefox push out 2 updates yesterday ( I live down under ). Am i tripping but i swear FF pushed 2 updates yesterday 118.0.0 Then hours later 118.0.1 i'm using the 64-bit version. And i use WindowsLTSC on my main PC. And my Laptop is Win10 pro & Gamer PC is Win10 Pro they are on Firefox V 118.0.0 (64bit) About to update them to V 118.0.1 (64bit)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
NVB posted:Did firefox push out 2 updates yesterday ( I live down under ). 118 came out on the 26th, so you just didn't see it for whatever reason for 2 days. And then yes there was a quick .0.1 patch for a security flaw. (For vp8 encoding, which chrome was also vulnerable to. So that was probably a case where google discovered their vp8 code was bad, and the timing for when it got fixed involved lots of working together so everything could update at once.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Ah Cheers Friend @Klyith. For clearing that up.  Also here's an Ars Tech article and it looks like a whole lotta app/s etc are vuln https://arstechnica.com/security/2023/09/new-0-day-in-chrome-and-firefox-is-likely-to-plague-other-software/ 
NVB fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Sep 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 09:55
|
|
|
I didn't realize the browsers had encoding code in them in the first place. That Ars article says there's VP8-encoding websites out there, that's such a weird concept.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
I guess its for video streams like webcams or remote desktops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 22:26
|
|
|
Most webcams output a YUV4:2:2 data stream, or a series of JPEG images (known as Motion JPEG), at a series of resolutions and framerates, and it's up to the browser to encode the video to h264 or vp8 before it's used via WebRTC. The easiest way to do this is to use an established software library that has great support for the codecs that you want to work with, and preferably has assembly optimized implementations for multiple architectures - libvpx just so happens to be the one in this instance. It could've just as well been libavcodec, which is used for decoding by vlc, mpv and other media players - the choice is probably down to license as the former is 3-clause BSD, while the latter is GPLv2/LGPL. It probably also helps that it was developed in-house. Of course, all of this is obviated by some webcams just outputting a h264 stream nowadays - because ASIC implementations of h264 encoding have gotten so cheap to produce, and require so little power, that they can be built into a webcam that can almost blend in on top of a monitor. BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
Yeah I guess I assumed the webcam or screen-sharing plug-in or whatever were handling the encoding and just passing a stream through the browser to the other end. I never really thought about it though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
NVB posted:Did firefox push out 2 updates yesterday ( I live down under ). In Australia, saw that too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 16:02
|
|
