• OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    11 months ago

    So, aside from the ad block everyone loves and I don’t have the characters to type, what do we recommend?

  • JoumanaKayrouz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I switched to Ff on all devices last week and I have no complaints. Other than email, I’m slowly migrating from all Google products.

  • Substance_P@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Writing from a privacy perspective remember, browser add-ons can potentially make it easier to fingerprint or recognize an individual. But still, I can’t help but love this new FF feature.

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      what’s wrong with webp? it’s a significantly more efficient file format (like 20% less file size for the same quality) and is supported everywhere by now. if anything, the default should be webp for image types that can be both lossy and losslessly compressed

        • force@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I haven’t come across a single image or video editor that doesn’t support webp nowadays. I use paint.net, krita, aseprite, inkscape, ibis paint x, opentoonz, and davinci resolve, plus libreoffice if you count that, they all support importing/exporting and editing webp just as any other image file format. I’m pretty sure GIMP and Photoshop do too but I don’t use them so I can’t say for sure

          I feel like a majority of people have to go out of their way to make webp an inconvenience in the modern day.

          Besides, if it for some reason doesn’t work in a specific situation you need it you can just manually change the extension to “.jpeg” or “.png” and Windows/Linux/Android file managers will automatically convert it. But I can guess most people don’t actually face a situation like that.

          • kellyaster@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            you can just manually change the extension to “.jpeg” or “.png” and Windows/Linux/Android file managers will automatically convert it

            Thank you for the suggestion, but that’s not how it works. Changing a file’s extension doesn’t change the file type; it just changes the name.

  • kszeslaw@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    Didn’t they already support all addons a few years ago, and then limited it to the hand-picked ones?

    • Desistance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes. It was restricted since they moved to web extensions. They removed the restrictions on this release.

  • Dog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Now, when will Firefox be on the F-Droid Store? (By Mozilla, no one else)

      • Dog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Nothing. If Mozilla claims to love OSS, then why haven’t they released it on the F-Droid Store?

        • planish@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Because to put a build in F-Droid you need to write a build script to build the whole app from source on F-Droid’s VMs. You can’t, for example, fetch binary dependencies from Maven. You need to build them from source as part of your build process.

          Android Firefox fetches a bunch of stuff from Maven as part of its build, some of which is proprietary libraries from Google to e.g. talk to Google Play Services or to Google’s trusted-hardware stuff, and some of which is the whole Gecko C++ source tree. Mozilla doesn’t want to pay their people to maintain two separate build systems for Firefox, one of which has to jump through a bunch of hoops.

          • Dog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Then it just shows that they don’t “love OSS” as much as they say they do.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    When will they fix their mobile version though? As much as I want to use Firefox as much as possible, some websites just refuse to open in mobile Firefox, or not work properly. I have even made a simple website with fixed element on the bottom of the page, and it jumps like crazy when scrolling for whatever reason.

    • zipfelwurster@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I believe it’s because firefox’s UI is placed on the bottom of the screen per default. To account for that, I believe they adjust the viewport’s height to either exclude the bottom of the screen (when the symbol bar is displayed) or include it (when you scroll down and the symbol bar is hidden).

      Because they use a slide-out animation based on scrolling within the web page, the viewport changes a million times in height and causes elements fixed to the bottom of the viewport to jump and adjust a lot, causing weird behavior. And nobody tests for that.

      All of thse are my assumptions by the way, please test for yourself, I might well be wrong.

      If it really bothers you, try placing the symbol bar above and see if it works. It’s in the settings.

      • Matriks404@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        My UI was actually on the top, and by changing settings it looks like it’s actually other way around. When UI is on the bottom the fixed element on page moves semi-smoothly (there is still a gap during animation), but when UI is on the top it is fucked up completely. When scrolling down the fixed element also scrolls down for a bit before appearing where it should be, and when scrolling up the reverse happens. So it looks like they didn’t account for that users actually use UI on the top and that it can affect fixed elements on the bottom of the page or it’s just bugged because they don’t test their stuff. I guess I need to send a bug report.

        Edit: This bug seems to be at least 3 years old: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/16264

        Edit 2: There’s actually a (I think) relevant issue on bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1797964

        • zipfelwurster@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ah, interesting. Well, if you create a bug report, post the link here and I’ll vote it up for visibility :)