Now that the dust has settled, did Firefox become good and usable again?

nope

THEY remove cookies editor
antyspy, by deffault, work only in private window

firefox went to shit ever since Quantum. Hasn't recovered since.

This

Why bother? It's like switching from driving a truck to driving a microcar. They both drive and get you where you need to go, but I liked my fucking truck. Couldn't you just make the truck more fuel efficient? Nope. Take away my fucking truck and replace it with a microcar. Thanks Mozilla.

I switched to Vivaldi. It's not bad.

What extensions do you use on it not available on firefox?

Vivaldi gets laggy with it's bloated js UI. Your analogy doesn't make sense. Firefox > Vivaldi.

Vivaldi just uses chrome extensions; not like it matters, since Firefox was neutered, it doesn't matter what browser you use. They're basically all the same now.

There are a few extensions that work better in firefox. And important ones like ublock origin. Soon it will be even more gimped in chrome or possibly won't even work at all unless you pay for the enterprise version.
There are also many things firefox allows that chrome doesn't. And firefox can use chrome extensions. But there are firefox versions anyways.

Well I can always cross that bridge when I come to it, there's always Waterfox or Palemoon to fall back on.

Yes

I love Firefox but I can't convince myself to use it on my phone. So I'm stuck in Chrome/ium.

no

we are still fightring to kill chrome

>it became good enough, politics set aside
>the new aesthetics are tolerable
though firefox's main usp is remains the fact it isn't chrome

I like it way more than chrome and at the very least they do (some) things to protect privacy whereas chrome just doesn't even pretend to care

So Mozilla and Firefox started out as competitors?

No. It can't remember my Jow Forums settings, and keeps getting my last-used save directory wrong, which was a huge pain in the ass on the day Sadpanda died.

Firefox on PC + Firefox on Android for me

I prefer chrome on mobile and firefox on desktop. Probably because you can do many exentsions on mobile

No, it isn't, and it hasn't been for a long time.
Can you make firefox good and usable? Absolutely. But it takes more configuration changes than Iridium, ungoogled chromium, or Pale Moon. Furthermore, if you have your heart set on Firefox, I'd recommend going for Waterfox instead. You get all the benefits of FF's customization, without all the shitty practices of Mozilla, which are well-documented here:

digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html

unfortunately all the alternatives are either bad or botnet.
firefox you can at least de-botnet it.
so even if it is bad it is still the best alternative around

>There are a few extensions that work better in firefox
There are a few extensions that works better in chrome as their JS engine is usually faster.

>Firefox can use chrome extensions
Just a small subset and now is even harder as Chrome Store Foxified has been discontinued as mozilla keeps breaking it.

>There are also many things firefox allows that chrome doesn't
That works the other way around too:
Customize scrollbar:
chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rescroller/ddehdnnhjimbggeeenghijehnpakijod

Firefox has more APIs but are incredible limited so for example if you want to make your extension work inside the reader mode you just can't, while my extensions works fine in vivaldi reader mode.

>Bonus points:
Web-extensions are flawed y design and was possible to know the installed addons looking at their leaked UUID making users easier to fingerprint, on an amazingly stupid decision made by mozilla they decided to randomize the UUID just once so users now have unique UUIDs (not even per session but forever) making all the anti-tracking features useless till they fix this that has been known and reported for almost 3 years.

To a degree. Still infested with Google shit. A hardened .json can work pretty well but better off using IceCat.

>Not when it comes to privacy and customization
>customization
Two years passed since webextension switch and they STILL don't have global hotkeys support.

>making it easier to fingerprint
Firefox performs better on any anti fingerprinting test I've tried. So your argument doesn't work. The fact remains that important extensions like ubo work better on firefox. And it could work even worse on chromium-based browsers soon.

Most test are outdated and not using the uuid leak present on firefox, i'm using it on a few sites, and it works and let you see and even tamper with some extensions elements that are inserted on the site cause there's no sandbox or overlay api on firefox.

It was never usable.

And I'm just supposed to believe that without proof?

bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1372288
bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1405971

>opened 2 years ago

Attached: 1550680724808.jpg (290x290, 44K)

no
they remove features each new version (disabling auto updates, making addons obsolete, etc) and they are still shitting the bed ever since their api stunt

Yes

Attached: 1560515038040.jpg (708x1001, 46K)

>For add-ons who want to open extension resources in frames without leaking the uuid, do something like this:

var f = document.createElement("iframe");
document.body.appendChild(f);
f.contentWindow.location = chrome.extension.getURL("/some_web_accessible_page.html");

That doesn't work, you can even see that with a fucking mutation observer.

Correction this may help not to leak the UUID but will leak the iframe contents to a mutation observer, that pretty much as bad as leaking the uuid.

This two apis will solve both the problems that's why we asked for theme a few years ago:

bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1340930
bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1437098

I honestly think true fingerprinting resisting is pretty much a lost cause. The web and browsers themselves are only getting more complicated and feature rich, and new fingerprinting techniques exploiting this are popping up all the time. Anyone that really wants to fingerprint you can do so. You can get basic protection just blocking javascript and 3rd party resources and running stuff like privacy.resistfingerprinting but if you're really paranoid you probably have to look at better solutions.

I mean there is a lot of different things you can do but just having
privacy.firstparty.isolate;true
privacy.resistFingerprinting;true
browser.display.use_document_fonts;0
webgl.disabled;true
Does more than most browsers.

But of course mozilla has to rush out web-extensions with the more idiotic implementation ever....

>command API
The command api was not able to assign commands programmatically so users were not able to customize the hotkeys not even to prevent collisions and it took more than a year for mozilla to add a panel to customize commands.

>The find api that has has 3 functions:
find.find(), find.highlightResults() and find.removeHighlighting()

That seems cool to do a find that can highlight multiple items right?

Well no, cause they decided to make find.highlightResults() remove any highlights already present on the page.

>Other annoyances
Preventing extensions for working on reader, global hotkeys, limiting context menu items and its order while permitting sites override all your context menu entries without restrictions.

event the clipboard api is retarded as you can only copy images, if you want to copy text you have to run code on the web context and that leaks and let them tamper with the code so they know what you are copying and can change it to whatever the y want. (tested with copy plaintext extension on one of my test sites)

Firefox Preview is the perfect browser for mobile imo. You should give it a try.

Then you install an extension and it leaks an unique uuid.

If at least the uuid was not unique.... but this way you don't need any extra information to create an unique fingerprint as you already have an unique uuid.

Has extension support yet?

So don't install any extensions that leak their UUID. The holy trifecta of ublock, umatrix and https everwhere is all you need and they don't leak it.

Only depends on how the web extension author writes it. Important extensions dont leak it

ublock can leak under certain circumstances.

Important extensions leaks too, it doesn't depend of the importance but on the features.

Such as? Do you have any sources? I'm looking at a comment from gorhill on github and he explicitly says no leakage occurs on firefox.

you're full of shit. ublock origin does not. It depends how they are implemented and written. But soon that won't matter.

reddit.com/r/technology/comments/cirlxj/mozilla_firefox_could_soon_get_a_tor_mode_addon/
reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/cfdbe0/mozilla_firefox_tor_mode_likely_to_start_as_a/
reddit.com/r/technology/comments/bmrf15/mozilla_offers_research_grant_for_a_way_to_embed/

https eveywhere is garbage

The simplest, and only condition i'm going to disclosure here, is while using the element picker, i know it leaks cause i was trying to prevent leaks on my own extension and decided to test ublock hoping that gorhill have this shit figured out so i could use a similar approach, sadly it still leaks.

Just testing right now, it's better now it seems gorhill has further changed the code since last time i tested so now seems to leak less, but it's still easy to detect ublock picker, even when the id is random the css rules don't change and can be seen with a mutation observer with document as the target node.

We need a place to run code out of the site context and an overlay api, that's the only way to do this right.

Cause of the web-extension limitations there are features that can be implemented only if you leak at least a little bit and as i said the two apis overlay and sandbox will prevent most of this cases, doesn't matter how well or who writes them (unless you are mozilla and it's an internal extension so you can access apis that are restricted to normal devs)

I use firefox and develop extensions for both, chrome is not much better but chrome was always shit while legacy firefox extensions well written were able to do anything without leaks (badly written legacy extension could leak even more) right now for certain features you have to resign to leak a little and hope for the best cause there's no other way around the web-extension limitations.

Unfortunately it's a slightly slower chromium with fewer extensions.
I preferred it when it was a slower browser with vastly better addons.

Ublock origin does not leak though

Doesn't leak the unique uuid but leaks other stuff, i just have managed to tamper with the picker and may be able to disable ublock on a site using a dark pattern as i require a click from the user.

ok neo

no

You mean since intel processors were first released.

Yes. That was a much needed refresh.
The only addons that died are the ones whose authors decided to stop supporting.
Virtually, there's an alternative for all of those addons that never made the jump anyway.

Can you show an actual example of this? If possible, a picture or video or a small/quick test for everyone to check that you're not spewing bullshit would do wonders.
This is the first time I ever hear of this personally.

There is that huge privacy-gap

lol sure thing Schlomo

Quantum is the symptom not the illness, on its own Quantum is good

Not going to show examples for any exploit, but a quick sample of how to detect the picker should not give enough information as to cause harm.

var targetNode = document;
var config = { attributes: true, childList: true, subtree: true, characterData: true };

var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(mutation) {
for (var i = 0; i < mutation.addedNodes.length; i++) {
console.log(mutation.addedNodes[i].outerHTML);
}
});
});
observer.observe(targetNode, config);

You should be able to know when the picker has been opened as an iframe with random id will be created, you can know it's from ublock as the css is always the same:

also mutation observers can pick a lot more from other extensions too if they need to inject to the page for any of its features, there's a small subset where you can access extensions apis remotely but it's not common.

And i don't fucking know why i posted this cause i have already said that just a mutation observer was able to listen to elements injected by extensions... and this is supposed to be Jow Forums so going to the documentation should be enough for anyone to create one in less than 2 minutes.

What about Opera and Safari?

firefoxs top menu section takes up more height than chromes, so for that reason im sticking with chrome, real estate is very important to me since laptop is my primary driver

Firefox has been the only usable browser for ages.
And nobody should be happy about that.

>loved the customization of Firefox
>stop using it a year and a half ago because it just kept eating up so much goddamn RAM

I've been on Chrome ever since and haven't looked back. I miss my bookmarks and a lot of my add-ons but I've learned to live without most of them.

?

Attached: firefox.png (3626x1993, 1.02M)

If you learn to use the settings you'll find that firefox is able to use a lot less RAM than chrome. That is a stupid thing to worry about though.

Attached: 1564351797843.png (3774x1805, 512K)

It knows it doesn't have to, the average joe doesn't give a single shit.

Why should I trust Mozilla and why should I trust that Firefox can truly be private? Mozilla has done shit and still does shit that give me trust issues.
Firefox to me sounds like a complete privacy nightmare no matter how much tuning you do.

If only the code was openly available and you could monitor your network... oh wait
To me firefox is the best option, still.

/Thread

You shouldn't, but Mozilla employees will tell you to anyway.

holy shit only 200mb with that many tabs open? teach me senpai

Firefox has always been good and usable. The fucking Google Chrome botnet lies and viral marketing is the thing that has been knocking it down lately, as well as skewed numbers from fucking shitphones with everything IDing as fucking Chrome.
I don't know a single fucking person, old or young, that uses Chrome as their browser on PC.

Jow Forums unironically works best on vanilla internet explorer
captchas always go on the first or second try,
don't debate me until you try it

how do I disable updates?

Don't do anything important on that computer if you never plan on updating.

Attached: Screenshot_20190729-212406_Firefox.jpg (1080x1742, 425K)

Exact same result you would get with Firefox, if you didn't have privacy.resistFingerprinting set to True.

ProcessHacker -> Reduce WS

Firefox nightly with Wayland enabled + hwaccel and webrender turned on is God tier

Well mozilla comes from "Mosaic Killer", which was the competitor to netscape.

All I did was lower the content process in options and clicked minimize memory usage in about:memory

No.

I’m assuming Netscape is where Firefox came from.

No, but Palememe and Waterfox are fine.

I understand that but
TAB MIX PLUS

how to harden FF without breaking 4 chan?

Iridium.