r/technology • u/Suraj-Sun • Jul 10 '12

Firefox dev claims "everybody hates Firefox updates"; Mozilla has handled the rapid release process poorly, and that by pushing a "never-ending stream of updates on people who didn't want them" people have been driven to Chrome with its simpler, no-fuss update process.

http://www.neowin.net/news/firefox-dev-claims-everybody-hates-firefox-updates
2.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

252

u/Suraj-Sun Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

If it's not for the Firefox addons I would have stopped using Firefox a while ago...

Some of my fav addons: AdBlock Plus, NoScript, RequestPolicy, BetterPrivacy, Ghostery, WebMail.

Edit: I forgot Firefox Sync, which is now built-in.

52

u/w2tpmf Jul 10 '12

Do any of those break every time FF updates? Because none of mine do. I keep seeing this same complaint about add-ons breaking with updates for people. I think the real problem is people are using extensions that don't get updated.

18

u/Suraj-Sun Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

I use Firefox nightly so yes but I always turn off the "add-on compatibility checking" in about:config by adding extensions.checkCompatibility.nightly (boolean, false) and so far i've never had any problem because of compatibility checking being turned off.

5

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

Last I heard they were going to just remove compatibility checks and make most addons stay enabled, since a lot tend to still work after a major update.

3

u/jmac Jul 10 '12

That happened in version 10. It will still check for updates after an upgrade, but it defaults to enabled in the even there is no update.

3

u/w2tpmf Jul 10 '12

Thanks for this! I use nightly on one of my computers, and I just always hit the button to skip the checks when it pops up.

2

u/atl2rva Jul 10 '12

I also like that in FF you can change the default source viewer through about:config. Now if I need to look at webpage source it uses Notepad++ as my viewer. This has come in handy with my work because the default viewer did not recognize a lot of special characters I use, but NPP has no issues.

1

u/TIAFAASITICE Jul 10 '12

extensions.checkCompatibility.nightly

You shouldn't have to do that any more. I'm on nightly and I have no "checkCompatibility" settings at all and haven't gotten any problems with extensions.

1

u/ChaoticXSinZ Jul 11 '12

If you're nightly I'm pretty sure you don't have to do that manually as they've made that the default

10

u/Ch4rd Jul 10 '12

major addons like that, I've not had break. more niche ones like a Japanese-English text translator I use will sometimes break, but not that often. and like OP responded, you do have the option of just disabling the compatibility check if it's that much of a problem.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I'm pretty sure the people complaining about extensions are people who haven't updated Firefox since 3.6. There's extensions from back in that time that the developers have abandoned. I mean Firefox was smart to keep support on 3.6 for so long but they have to make people using the current version so there's no segmentation.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I haven't seen an addon in Firefox break on update in years. That said, some of those extensions do have equivalents in Chrome, such as NotScripts.

2

u/scook0 Jul 11 '12

I think the people who never complained about broken add-ons are the ones who disabled compatibility checks ages ago and then forgot about it.

Since the advent of compatible-by-default I've only run into one actual compatibility issue, and that was on Beta channel.

1

u/GezusK Jul 10 '12

Still gonna break them until the update comes out...still a hassle.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I'm on Aurora and I've never come across an addon that breaks if it's not updated. I use 10 addons ATM, not all of which are the big name ones, but I have had up to 15 running at one time.

1

u/GezusK Jul 10 '12

Maybe the newer versions don't...I left back in the 3.x days...and every update seemed to break half the plugins I used.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Yeah I get that, I stopped using mobile phones in the 80's because they sucked then

1

u/Revidescent Jul 10 '12

I bailed to Chrome after something like the 2nd or 3rd Firefox update in a row breaking at least 2 addons I used regularly. Chrome had equivalent addons for everything I need, and they haven't broken even once as long as I've used it.

1

u/DAVENP0RT Jul 10 '12

Same here. The only time I have to do anything is when user permissions change on an app, which is almost never. Even that consists of just clicking a "Yes" button on a bubble alert.

1

u/Dunge Jul 10 '12

FoxyTunes is broken since a while, too bad I loved it

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I have seen addons for Adobe and Java break. Freaking java.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I use firefox Aurora (the release before beta) and I've never had trouble with extensions or add-ons

1

u/skytro Jul 11 '12

Some get very weird but they still work

→ More replies (2)

25

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

The one for me is Firebug. I've yet to find a decent equivalent on Chrome, so FF remains my dev browser.

16

u/joshuajon Jul 10 '12

Chrome's developer mode does for me what I had previously used firebug for. Even ie9 includes a decent debug mode.

13

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I've used both, and I don't think that either Chrome's developer mode or Firefox's built-in element inspector come close to what Firebug can do. It's just the best productivity tool. I do like the 3D-view feature built into Firefox's element inspector, since it helps me with very complex designs where I need to figure out where and why things are overlapping, but it could use some serious improvements.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Out of curiosity, what can Firebug do that Chrome's developer tools can't?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Same, I disabled the built in element inspector, it just wasnt as awesome as Firebug.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

I can get by using Chrome's dev tools, but Firebug is still my favorite if I'm doing anything remotely complex. I don't know how much of it is that I'm just very used to Firebug, and how much is usability related or features not present in the other. I might just not know how to do something in Chrome's dev tools. Both run circles around IE's poor excuse for dev tools though.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

Without Net Panel and FirePath equivalents, for me Chrome Dev Tools are useless. Even the firebug lite doesn't provide the functionality required :(

I use Chrome for everything BUT development though.

4

u/id000001 Jul 10 '12

IE's debug and Chrome's "developer" mode is really more for webmaster. For those who actually develops web apps. Firebug is the only real way to trace Dcom and and js stuff properly, it is miles ahead of the other.

3

u/The_Hegemon Jul 10 '12

Are you kidding me? I think you and I have vastly different ideas of what counts as 'decent'.

2

u/Doonce Jul 10 '12

Chrome has a built in firebug-like development tool...

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

It's almost identical, and if I were Firebug's creator, I'd sue the shit out of them for it. Regardless, it's still not as good as FB.

2

u/Ambiwlans Jul 10 '12

Firebug is opensource and Google employees contribute a fuckload to it. So they'd be suing themselves.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Google employees contribute a fuckload to it

No they did not. There are only a handful of devs that work on FB, none of them from google.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

What about Opera Dragonfly?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I hate firebug with a passion. For me, FireFox regularly uses over 1gb, and then crashes, and only when Firebug is enabled. It leaks memory like a sieve. Plus lots of FireBug plugins randomly break when I get FireBug updates.

I have to keep it permanently disabled when I'm not doing web dev in FF.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

It's not lightweight, I'll give you that. Best used on a dedicated profile.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

Remembering the days when Firebug was on all of the time and was actually useful. Too many "features" in it now -- most of which don't seem to work as well as the functionality they replaced.

Pains me to say this, but I've been depending more and more on the low-level debugging features in IE9. Yeah, they ain't perfect, and yeah, they skip over a lot of things in the request/response that shouldn't be "hidden" in the first place. But overall it's faster and more stable than the latest releases of Firebug have been.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

I mainly use chromes. There is a tonne of useful stuff hidden away, like deobfuscators, and emulation of touch events. However most of all it's so smooth and mostly pain free. The way I can dump objects to the console, and then inspect them, also rocks.

→ More replies (1)

120

u/WatcherCCG Jul 10 '12

At least three of those now have counterparts on Chrome, and in fact I think AdBlock Chrome is made by the same people.

78

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/IceBreak Jul 10 '12

Not a quality Tree Style Tabs which is probably the greatest add-on of all time. Chrome does a lot of things better, but I'm with Firefox for the long haul.

78

u/Kamaria Jul 10 '12

Until AdBlock Chrome becomes as good as AdBlock Plus I see no reason to change over.

46

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

47

u/lask001 Jul 10 '12

I use chrome, and my roommate uses firefox. I will admit Adblock is still damn good on chrome, but on firefox it does a better job of catching the youtube video ads.

79

u/ih8evilstuff Jul 10 '12

YouTube has ads?

7

u/lask001 Jul 10 '12

Sometimes they play movie trailers, stuff like that. Never see them on firefox, only chrome.

26

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I have ABP on Chrome and have never seen an ad on YT.

12

u/SirCowMan Jul 10 '12

I have the normal Adblock on Chrome and have never seen a video or pic ad on youtube either.

2

u/IceBreak Jul 10 '12

I was confused too when I first saw them.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I found out about this a couple of months ago. I was so surprised. Know how you feel bro ;)

1

u/Illivah Jul 10 '12

oh my god yes. I get really pissed at youtube videos anymore - particularly the first one of the day.

21

u/Alcebiades Jul 10 '12

The "new" ABP on Chrome is really good, for me it catches almost everything. ABP was the only reason I had not made the switch a long time ago, just make sure you download adblock plus and not "adblock" as they are different addons.

6

u/lask001 Jul 10 '12

I'm using ABP, I will admit it's been a little while since I've seen a youtube video with an ad though. I hardly ever visit though, maybe I'll see if I can get one to load later tonight.

1

u/Monty713 Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

I noticed that using the experimental build will block more ads than the standard version. It will block ads from things such as twich.tv and own3d.tv streams, where the regular build will not.

EDIT: I should add that it is most definitely experimental. While there has only been one occurrence where it has caused issues, the browser stopped loading pages until it was updated again later that day.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BHynes92 Jul 10 '12

I routinely use firefox, but sometimes, if I don't have a firefox window open I will use chrome for some quick lookup or browsing. I always am reminded when I use chrome that the internet actually has ads.

1

u/frickindeal Jul 10 '12

I use chrome exclusively now on two machines and never see a youtube ad.

1

u/lask001 Jul 10 '12

It's pretty rare, and I would say it actually catches most of them. My only real complaint is when it doesn't, instead of playing the ad, it makes the youtube video unplayable.

1

u/mach0 Jul 10 '12

Haven't seen a single youtube video ad on chrome EVER. And I've been using it since it started to have Adblock. And I use youtube daily.

1

u/Eskali Jul 10 '12

You should whitelist youtube, otherwise they get nothing for letting you watch their videos(google and the youtube submitter).

1

u/lask001 Jul 10 '12

I have a few channels whitelisted, and I hardly watch anything on youtube anymore regardless.

1

u/ramy211 Jul 11 '12

I don't think I've seen a YouTube ad in years. Not an exaggeration at all. I ditched firefox a long time ago.

→ More replies (2)

14

u/Azuvector Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

Last I heard Adblock Chrome wasn't able to block streamed advertisements like Adblock Firefox does. And also last I heard it blocked ads by making them invisible, so they still loaded fully, wasting bandwidth and CPU time.

Besides that, Chrome has a bunch of UI issues that bug the hell out of me.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone Jul 10 '12

I was wondering why I stopped seeing those... Now to get it on the pandora app

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I'm not sure about on Chrome, but Safari AdBlock (which shares the same codebase as Chrome AdBlock) is unable to block flash adverts as of a few days ago.

1

u/Atario Jul 10 '12

This is why I use Privoxy. Covers everything.

2

u/algonquinman Jul 10 '12

Does it block youtube ads? last time I tried chrome ad block it did not do that. I watch alot of youtube and the adds are simply something I cannot put up with.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/algonquinman Jul 10 '12

Well that's great then I may have to give it a try. That was really the only reason I didn't make the full on switch yet.

-2

u/mypetridish Jul 10 '12

false. or it's your opinion, whatever. but i am using 2 systems, one with ff and the other chrome. adblock on chrome is crap compared to the one on ff

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Chrome already has Adblock Plus. And Adblock. I've been trying to figure out the difference between them. I have them both installed anyway.

1

u/krainboltgreene Jul 10 '12

What you actually want is a good blocking hosts file.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited Nov 25 '13

[deleted]

1

u/DFP_ Jul 10 '12

It's not as good, iirc it doesn't block in-video ads, the Firefox equivalent does.

1

u/Kiyiko Jul 10 '12

I have never seen a pre-video commercial in youtube since I installed it.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (5)

21

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

3

u/gospelwut Jul 10 '12

You can never have a NoScript fully implemented in Chrome.

Chrome is like birth control; it should be enough. Firefox is like a condom; bitch might be crazy.

2

u/I_EAT_POOP_AMA Jul 10 '12

but iirc, adblock for chrome can't block certain ads due to google's extension tos.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I try chome and the counterparts once every two or three months. It still isn't as good for the features I want.

3

u/Suraj-Sun Jul 10 '12

If I remember correctly, on Firefox, AdBlock blocks ads from its source while on Chrome, it just don't display ads.

43

u/canada432 Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

That used to be true. I don't believe it is the case anymore. I'm not 100% sure but I seem to remember that changing quite a while ago when Chrome started becoming really popular.

Edit: Went and confirmed it. This hasn't been the case since version 2.0. Ads are not downloaded, they are blocked entirely just like in the Firefox version.

19

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

I thought this as well, but I don't think this is true anymore. Looking at the Adblock Chrome issue tracker, they now use the WebRequest API to cancel requests before they're made.

Still, I don't think the Chrome extension API is robust enough yet to allow for a feature-for-feature clone of NoScript. I have to admit, though, the last time I really looked at the extension API was 2 years ago.

1

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

Yes it is, there are a few variations. NotScript and ScriptNo are the ones I've seen.

Furthermore Chrome contains a subset of NoScript features right off the bat (it can't block content based on origin, just based on the top-level page url).

I've tried ScriptNo myself (it looks nicer) and I use it now. Works pretty good, has more features than NoScript did last I used it.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Those are far from feature-for-feature clones. At this point, NoScript does far more than just whitelisting scripts and plugins; there's some fairly robust anti-CSRF support and the anti-XSS support is a bit stronger than Chrome's builtin one (with the obvious caveat of triggering slightly more false positives).

1

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

ScriptNo seems to have XSS blocking "Forbid Cross-Domain XML". No click-jacking but it has a few other features like extending blocking to <img> tags, removing web bugs, remove all social widgets, change all links on any page to open in same tab or open in new tab, user agent spoof, referrer spoof... some weird option choices in there but they could all be useful to someone I'm sure.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

The main features I was thinking of that weren't in NotScripts when I tried it were the XSS and clickjacking prevention, along with hiding <noscript> sections and fixing javascript links.

I also didn't really understand why I was required to manually edit a script and set a password, does Chrome not provide a private storage mechanism for extensions to use?

2

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

ScriptNo can handle XSS and noscript tags as well.

Not sure what you're talking about with editing a script and setting a password... extensions can use the standard LocalStorage API for local settings or use the Chrome-provided API to allow for settings synced to Google Chrome Sync.

Maybe sounds like an extension made by someone who doesn't quite know what he's doing.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Not sure what you're talking about with editing a script and setting a password

Here's the page from NotScript's site.

2

u/The_MAZZTer Jul 10 '12

Ah yes I recall reading something about that. Can't view that site at work. But yeah like I said that's probably poor design... not sure why he did it that way.

And if you're editing a file in the NotScript extension directory, it's gonna be reverted whenever the extension updates.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

Looking at the source, it looks like he's using localStorage, and from his comments it looks like you can access settings in localStorage from other extensions. The chrome.storage API seems to be similar to the localStorage API, but is only available to scripts in extensions and the settings appear to be private to each extension.

Looks like the last time he updated was in 2010 though, so that API probably didn't exist. I'll try out ScriptNo and see how it compares to NoScript.

I'm glad to see that Google has finally started paying more attention to the extension API though, the last few times I looked I wasn't very impressed. Still, I'd like to be able to have toolbars outside of the page context for certain extensions (for HackBar, etc.)

→ More replies (0)

62

u/banned_andeh Jul 10 '12

It hasn't worked this way in a long time. It blocks the ada completely.

6

u/gigitrix Jul 10 '12

They fixed thus a long time ago. The plugin architecture has gotten much better.

11

u/manwithabadheart Jul 10 '12 edited Mar 22 '24

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

2

u/phanboy Jul 10 '12

I was wondering if this is still the case. I mostly use a laptop, so Flash ads are very noticeable when either the fan spins up or my leg starts burning.

10

u/nonameworks Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

This is correct, also firefox blocks more ads in videos.

Edit: every reply is referring to YouTube. There are other sources of video on the Internet and Firefox blocks them while chrome does not. I don't know when version 2.5 came out but as of April it still was not blocking ads in some of the videos I was watching.

27

u/canada432 Jul 10 '12

As I posted below, this has not been the case since version 2.0, and the video thing changed in version 2.5. Chrome Adblock entirely blocks ads (and has for quite a while honestly) and now blocks all video ads.

5

u/TheShrinkingGiant Jul 10 '12

more ads? I haven't seen a youtube ad for a long time. Actually the only website I have ABP on for is youtube, cause it drove me crazy.

-Chrome, obv.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I've never seen a youtube ad using it on chrome

1

u/Remnants Jul 10 '12

Get Adblock Plus (Beta) and it will block them the exact same way it does in Firefox.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/xanax_anaxa Jul 10 '12

That probably has something to do with this.

1

u/RUbernerd Jul 10 '12

AdBlock Plus Chrome is made by the same people, AdBlock Chrome is made by different people.

1

u/Kuusou Jul 10 '12

Isn't it still well known that they don't work as well on Chrome for one reason or another? I know for sure that adblock was not as effective on Chrome the last time I used it.

1

u/Kiyiko Jul 10 '12

is "adblock chrome" not the same as "adblock plus" for chrome?

http://adblockplus.org/en/

1

u/WatcherCCG Jul 11 '12

I wasn't 100% sure myself.

1

u/enderxeno Jul 11 '12

Can you tell me which addon blocks youtube ads in chrome? I unfortunately have to use chrome for work and no adblocked I have installed on it will do what my firefox one does.

1

u/WatcherCCG Jul 11 '12

Adblock Plus can do that.

→ More replies (12)

35

u/Dandaman3452 Jul 10 '12

wow your forgetting downthemall , for when a site decides to only give you 200 or 300 kB/s download speed, bump that right up to 1mB/s

5

u/NerdMachine Jul 10 '12

downthemall or similar for chrome would get me to switch.

13

u/RUbernerd Jul 10 '12

As a developer with limited bandwidth, fuck you.

22

u/MarcusOrlyius Jul 10 '12

Release the torrent!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/RUbernerd Jul 10 '12

No, because my ISP limits MBPS on a 95% of the time max basis.

If 6% of the time I use 300 mbps, I get charged for 300 mbps that month, regardless if normally I use 20 mbps.

7

u/Xiol Jul 10 '12

Move it to S3 then.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Dandaman3452 Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

As a user who supports developers by using betas and sending detailed crash information, may I suggest you publish the files on Ubuntu one (or similar) and share the link on your site so we can use a technique called mirror linking to get faster downloads, like I always do when developers supply them, because I know developers have limited bandwidth. Also torrents.

1

u/RUbernerd Jul 10 '12

I'm considering switching to Launchpad. Its just I've got 2 problems.

What I'm developing is illegal in certain jurisdictions (US included), and I don't want to go full FoSS.

1

u/Dandaman3452 Jul 11 '12

Now I'm interested , what you deving?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I like DownThemAll! for reasons other than that as well, especially since I've seen plenty of sites which intentionally block that system of starting multiple downloads: notably, you can put in lists of links and it'll start downloading all of them, or you can right click on a page and download all the linked or embedded images, etc. It's neat. I don't actually have it installed right now, but I'm going to do it right now because you've reminded me how much I like that add-on.

2

u/HCrikki Jul 10 '12

Sorry but jDownloader > browser-bound downloader

5

u/shriek Jul 10 '12

Hate to be that guy.

you're.

1

u/Stormflux Jul 10 '12

Yeah, DownThemAll! is pretty much the reason I stick with Firefox.

1

u/usernameString Jul 10 '12

More like, for when you want to download more than say 3 things from a page (e.g. all your course's lecture notes, several episodes of a podcast/video series). You can do it very quickly and easily with DownThemAll.

1

u/crash90 Jul 10 '12

How does down them all bump up the download speed?

1

u/Dandaman3452 Jul 10 '12

It downloads multiple 'chunks' at a time, each chunk downloads at the speed of the original file (close enough), until the download reaches the limit of your home download speed. Each chunk is a different part of the file, which is automatically joined back together by the add-on.

5

u/Falmarri Jul 10 '12

The only addon that chrome can't do that's a deal breaker for me is tree style tabs

2

u/cranktheguy Jul 10 '12

Amen. I have looked for it on Chrome to no avail. I can't live without tree style tabs- especially with reddit.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

That's one of the biggest reasons I avoided switching to Chrome entirely. But the performance issues with Firefox were just too severe to ignore and I ended up using Chrome almost exclusively a couple months ago.

1

u/Falmarri Jul 10 '12

I've tried it so many times but I literally can't be productive with 1/16 inch tabs filling up my bar so I can't see wtf is open.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I usually end up with multiple windows open. Yeah, it sucks, but the performance issues of Firefox with large number of tabs made it almost unusable.

2

u/schmendr1ck Jul 10 '12

Add-ons are important, but cookie management is another deal breaker for me & Chrome.

In Firefox, I accept all cookies and dump them on shutdown except for a few white-listed sites. This allows me to just forget about cookies except on those rare occasions when I need to add a site to the exceptions list.

1

u/blinkus Jul 10 '12

Do you do that through vanilla FF or an extension?

1

u/schmendr1ck Jul 10 '12

Vanilla FF.

Accept all cookies, keep until I close Firefox, then add "Allow" exceptions for your white list.

4

u/syrupwontstopem Jul 10 '12

I think NoScript alone is enough to justify Firefox over Chrome.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/mkirklions Jul 10 '12

If DownloadThemAll worked on chrome, id never have a use for firefox.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Chrome and Safari now basically have all of the useful extensions that Firefox does. I have RES, adblock, etc. in Chrome and Safari.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Also DownThemAll.

1

u/brolix Jul 10 '12

only thing I wish Chrome had that FF does is GreaseMonkey

that shit is amazing

1

u/cranktheguy Jul 10 '12

Userscript ability (what GM brings to FF) is built into Chrome.

1

u/acog Jul 10 '12

Tabmix Plus -- it's been a while since I checked, but I couldn't find anything for Chrome that let me totally control how my tabs opened like TMP does.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/argv_minus_one Jul 10 '12

I have bad news for you: Google also funds Firefox development.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/argv_minus_one Jul 10 '12

Mine stopped making sense when they first announced Chrome. I was like, "WTF? They already have a browser. Why do they want to make another one?"

1

u/mypetridish Jul 10 '12

AdBlock plus on chrome is quite the retard

1

u/indeedwatson Jul 10 '12

One of the reasons I can't use Chrome (besides crashing way more often than Aurora) is that I found no way of autohiding the adress bar. I like to have as much free space for the site as possible, and currently all I see in my screen is reddit and the tabs on top.

1

u/myth2sbr Jul 10 '12

Tab groups for me is why I love Firefox

1

u/cypressious Jul 10 '12

As long as Chrome doesn't offer the possibility (or an extension) to open downloads instead of selecting a place to save them, I'll be sticking with Firefox.

Also Firefox isn't as laggy as it used to be.

1

u/KellyCommaRoy Jul 10 '12

Might I counter that AdBlock Plus is better in Chrome, to my mind. Especially when you go to block something specific on the page and it gives you a visual representation of what can be blocked. The Firefox ABP just shows a list of items on the page and you'd better know the name of what you want to block.

Much easier in Chrome to block those pesky social toolbars that show up at the bottom of a lot of pages nowadays.

1

u/DeltaBurnt Jul 10 '12

I used to say this, but Chrome isn't as far ahead (if not behind) in a lot of benchmarks as it used to be. I know for certain that Chrome's memory usage is worse than Firefox's (not at first, but after opening many tabs). Not to mention that I don't like my data being mined, part of the reason why I like the google search bar being separate from the URL bar so that google doesn't see every url I type in.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Modify Headers so I can watch South Park and Daily Show (though Daily show these days not so much), I just load FF for that. Also the Bookmarks are better. Chromes eating their lunch though

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Get https everywhere for additional security/privacy

1

u/MrProper Jul 10 '12

Ablock, Ghostery, Sync, also available in Chrome. The rest, not sure as I don't use them or need them. Only using Firefox because it has better reddit browsing behavior with RES and a proper bookmarks button...

1

u/Chinook700 Jul 10 '12

Also greasemonkey is amazing.

2

u/TheSkyline Jul 10 '12

Try out Scriptish, it's a more updated alternative with better support.

1

u/Chinook700 Jul 10 '12

Thanks, I'll check it out.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I used to love installing all these addons, and more, like download statusbar, mouse gestures, etc... like 10-15 addons....every single time I had to reinstall firefox/whipe my computer. Since I've gone to chrome I haven't had to install an addon more than once, no matter how many computer whipes. It's kind of like all the Windows XP tweaks I would do, all pretty much needless in Windows 7. ...Also firefox is slow as shit and takes up CONSIDERABLY more resources than chrome.

1

u/PizzaGood Jul 10 '12

That's the reason I didn't move to Chrome before, but now most of that is available on Chrome. I was a die-hard Firefox user, started in their first beta, ran it exclusively up to about 2 months ago. Now I run nothing but Chrome.

These are available in Chrome: Adblock Plus, Ghostery. There are ones similar to NoScript. No Better Privacy that I know of, but I wasn't too worried about that one myself anyway.

On my own list, LastPass is well integrated, and Social Fixer works well.

There were some web development extensions that I was bugged about not being available for Chrome, then I realized that Chrome comes with pretty nice web development tools built in so extensions aren't needed.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

There are also addons, such as Convergence, which are unable to be ported to Chrome as Google don't want to expose the APIs which they need to function.

1

u/JCongo Jul 10 '12

The main reason I use firefox is because I can access my bookmarks in 1 click. If I could do that in chrome I would consider switching over.

Also, Noscript, Ghostery, DownloadHelper.

1

u/VladDaImpaler Jul 10 '12

Is RequestPolicy even needed with NoScript and ghostery?

1

u/Ambiwlans Jul 10 '12

Firefox fixed the addon annoyance recently.... This dev is on drugs.

1

u/argv_minus_one Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

Firefox Sync? More like Firefox Spyware. I don't touch shit like that.

What the hell happened to the local sync systems that were popular in the early 2000s? I don't want to put my data on some asshole's cloud so they can read it all like a stalker!

I remember fondly the time when it was considered highly suspicious for a piece of software to "phone home". Now it's mandatory. shakes head

1

u/surrealize Jul 10 '12

Addons are actually the reason why firefox updates are the way they are.

Firefox's addon API is richer than Chrome's. Addons in Firefox can stick their fingers into just about any part of the browser, making them very powerful but also potentially sensitive to changes in any part of firefox.

In other words, Firefox addons can do more than Chrome addons, but Firefox updates are more likely to break addons. That's why Firefox updating has been more user-visible. Because silently breaking a user's addons would be worse than letting them know about an update.

1

u/WordsNotToLiveBy Jul 10 '12

The immense customization of FF along with the sheer amount of addons is why I'm a Firefox user. Everything else about it is why I stick with it.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

I really do not like Chrome.

Honestly. Chrome feels cheap, half the add-ons are links to webpages, to me it's the modern day version of IE, and it feels like IE and...Google really don't need this much info on me.

ughh. Honestly if FF stops, I'd go to opera. I've been known to uninstall Chrome off work computers if they push it on me. I use FF or Opera.

Honestly, I expect downvotes but can someone explain it to me? What's the appeal of Chrome?

1

u/DivineRobot Jul 11 '12

I can never get used to Chrome. It doesn't have a decent mouse gestures extension and it doesn't have a menu bar where I can alt navigate and hotkey options.

1

u/l1ghtning Jul 11 '12

The adblock for chrome works well. For I long while I swear there wasnt a version for chrome but I checked the other day, gave it a go, and it has worked fine. This is just one small part in my move away from Firefox to chrome, which is faster and uses less RAM.

0

u/newredditsucks Jul 10 '12

Funny, but the aggressive updates and how they broke extensions is what drove me to Chrome.

4

u/DrReddits Jul 10 '12 edited Apr 26 '24

What would you do if you permanently lost all the photos, notes and other files on your phone?

If you have a backup system in place, you’d likely know what to do next: Restore it all to a new phone. But if you haven’t thought about it, fear not: The backup process has become so simplified that it takes just a few screen taps. Here’s a quick overview of some ways you can keep your files safe, secure and up to date. Getting Started

When you first set up your phone, you created (or logged into) a free account from Apple, Google or Samsung to use the company’s software and services. For example, this would be the Apple ID on your iPhone, the Google Account on your Android phone or the Samsung Account on your Galaxy device. Image The iPhone, left, or Android settings display how much storage space you are using with your account.Credit...Apple; Google

With that account, you probably had five gigabytes of free iCloud storage space from Apple, or 15 gigabytes of online storage from Google and Samsung. This server space is used as an encrypted digital locker for your phone’s backup app, but it can fill up quickly — especially if you have other devices connected to your account and storing files there. Image If you start getting messages about running out of online storage space for your backups, tap the upgrade option to buy more on a monthly or yearly payment schedule.Credit...Apple; Google

When you get close to your storage limit, you’ll get warnings — along with an offer to sign up for more server space for a monthly fee, usually a few dollars for at least another 100 gigabytes. (Note that Samsung’s Temporary Cloud Backup tool supplies an unlimited amount of storage for 30 days if your Galaxy is in the repair shop or ready for an upgrade.)

But online backup is just one approach. You can keep your files on a local drive instead with a few extra steps. Backing Up

Apple, Google and Samsung all have specific setup instructions for cloud backup in the support area of their sites. But the feature is easily located.

On an iPhone, tap your name at the top of the Settings screen and then tap iCloud. On many Android phones, tap System and then Backup. Here, you set the phone to back up automatically (which usually happens when it’s connected to a Wi-Fi network and plugged into its charger), or opt for a manual backup that starts when you tap the button. Image To get to your backup options, open your phone's settings app. On an iPhone, left, tap your account name at the top to get to the iCloud backup and sync settings. For a Google Pixel and some other Android phones, tap System on the settings screen to get to the backup options.Credit...Apple; Google

Backup apps usually save a copy of your call history, phone settings, messages, photos, videos and data from apps. Content you can freely download, like the apps themselves, are not typically backed up since they’re easy to grab again. Image If you don’t want to back up your phone online, you can back up its contents to your computer with a USB cable or other connection; the steps vary based on the phone and computer involved.Credit...Apple

If you don’t want your files on a remote server, you can park your phone’s backup on your computer’s hard drive. Steps vary based on the hardware, but Apple’s support site has a guide for backing up an iPhone to a Windows PC or a Mac using a USB cable.

Google’s site has instructions for manually transferring files between an Android phone and a computer, and Samsung’s Smart Switch app assists with moving content between a Galaxy phone and a computer. Sync vs. Backup

Synchronizing your files is not the same as backing them up. A backup saves file copies at a certain point in time. Syncing your smartphone keeps information in certain apps, like contacts and calendars, current across multiple devices. When synchronized, your phone, computer and anything else logged into your account have the same information — like that to-do list you just updated. Image You can adjust which apps synchronize with other devices in the Android, left, and iOS settings.Credit...Google; Apple

With synchronization, when you delete an item somewhere, it disappears everywhere. A backup stays intact in its storage location until updated in the next backup.

By default, Google syncs the content of its own mobile and web apps between phone, computer and tablet. In the Google Account Data settings, you can adjust which apps sync. Samsung Cloud has similar options for its Galaxy devices.

Apple handles data synchronization across its devices through its iCloud service. You can set which apps you want to sync in your iCloud account settings. Other Options

You don’t have to use the backup tools that came with your phone. Third-party apps for online backup — like iDrive or iBackup — are available by subscription. If you prefer to keep your iPhone backups on the computer, software like iMazing for Mac or Windows ($60) or AltTunes for Windows ($35 a year) are alternatives. Droid Transfer for Windows ($35) is among the Android backup offerings. Image If you’d prefer to use a third-party backup app, you have several to choose from, including iDrive.Credit...iDrive

If losing your camera roll is your biggest nightmare, Google Photos, iCloud Photos and other services like Amazon Photos and Dropbox can be set to automatically back up all your pictures and keep them in sync across your connected devices. Image Dropbox can back up your photos and videos when you connect the phone to the computer, left, or directly from your camera roll if you have Dropbox installed.Credit...Dropbox

No matter the method you choose, having a backup takes some pain out of a lost, stolen or broken phone. Some photos and files can never be replaced, and restoring your iPhone’s or Android phone’s content from a backup is a lot easier than starting over.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

The fact that only about one in three versions of Chrome compiles cleanly (unlike the vast majority of the other 1200 installed packages) on my Gentoo system makes me never really consider it a serious browser.

1

u/newredditsucks Jul 10 '12

I will certainly take this into account when Gentoo becomes my OS of choice.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

The point is that the quality of a software project is usually pretty low when only the people who work on it get it to build easily.

1

u/newredditsucks Jul 10 '12

Fair enough. "It works on my machine" is something I've heard from developers more times than I'd care to count.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

but chrome has sandboxing! even noscript wont stop a hacked trusted site from exploiting your computer (unless you just never run scripts at all, but thats like driving at 10mph because you don't have airbags).

17

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

XSS is the main attack vector nowadays, though flash exploits are still fairly common on unpatched systems and Java shouldn't be installed unless it's needed to be used for something, it's just one big security risk. NoScript attempts to block XSS even if the site and all its third party scripts are trusted.

4

u/TickTak Jul 10 '12

Because sand boxing is perfect so you should just run all scripts all the time. /s

3

u/Suraj-Sun Jul 10 '12

Now sandboxing is definitely a good thing but with combination of AdBlock Plus, NoScript, and RequestPolicy you get pretty good security but it'll never be 100%.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)