Oh hey, more fearmongering and horrible clickbait about Firefox, it had been a few hours without some!
Firefox just dropped the single site browser feature. The thing that was hidden under a flag for the executable, that you had to actually dig for quite a bit to find. The thing that didn't work that well to begin with. Link in your site that redirects to another site? Well, your window is now a... multiple site browser, because it's going to stay in there.
But no, surely it's Firefox moving away from a key piece of the open web, and not because the feature never worked that well in the first place. Or that barely anyone used it.
FWIW, I use a program called "flow" on MacOS that does this but using Safari. Use it for slack and a music streaming, and dev kanban board. Anything can be made to be stuck to front or back.
Eliminates all the buttons, and gets a custom title.
It could be better and I know the same exists and is more popular for Chrome, but I wanted the absolute lowest CPU possible for MacOS.
That's a customizable setting in Flow. You can have it launch your default browser or open it internally.
There's also the pros and cons of auth/cookie isolation. You'll need to log in to Slack again. But if you use it for, say, Facebook it will work like the isolation feature in FF.
How so, though? Those platforms' market dominantion is a reflection of the fact that they have _devices_; Mozilla, as far as I know, don't have devices and jailbreaking is off the table for the majority of device users.
> Mozilla has always championed the open web. So why is it abandoning desktop web apps, the most powerful alternative to proprietary App Stores?
Most powerful? Define powerful here. If we're talking about convenience, I guess, but even then, a standard webpage is fine. In terms of amount of things it can do, no way. Not having access to a file system or standard sockets immediately disqualifies it from being the second most powerful option in my mind.
Maybe the word "powerful" is being used differently here, but I don't know what definition they could be using.
There is a file api in the works for web apps. Web app functionality is restricted but it closely mirrors that of apps on mobile devices which are largely sandboxed especially in ios.
Hi, I'm the author of this story. Mozilla declined to make anyone available for an interview and would only provide canned responses to questions via email (included in the story).
This article talks about one of my pains. This idea of apps was once explored by Mozilla. Remember XUL? XULRunner? I wish they come up with something of that sort soon. Not only that. I also want Mozilla to come up with an alternate for NodeJS. Why can't Firefox's JS engine be separated?
Honestly firefox's PWA support always sucked it didn't support extensions, or the Share Target API, and Firefox installed PWAs don't show up in the "Remove Program" ui on windows, or even the app drawer on Android from time to time. Even Safari has a better PWA experience. This looks like Mozilla cutting bait when they know they can't compete. Firefox is in a death spiral. It's been a good run!
24 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 60.7 ms ] threadOff-topic, but how does the exact same URL get submitted again within a day? Do you need a certain level of karma to do that?
Firefox just dropped the single site browser feature. The thing that was hidden under a flag for the executable, that you had to actually dig for quite a bit to find. The thing that didn't work that well to begin with. Link in your site that redirects to another site? Well, your window is now a... multiple site browser, because it's going to stay in there.
But no, surely it's Firefox moving away from a key piece of the open web, and not because the feature never worked that well in the first place. Or that barely anyone used it.
Eliminates all the buttons, and gets a custom title.
It could be better and I know the same exists and is more popular for Chrome, but I wanted the absolute lowest CPU possible for MacOS.
There's also the pros and cons of auth/cookie isolation. You'll need to log in to Slack again. But if you use it for, say, Facebook it will work like the isolation feature in FF.
Most powerful? Define powerful here. If we're talking about convenience, I guess, but even then, a standard webpage is fine. In terms of amount of things it can do, no way. Not having access to a file system or standard sockets immediately disqualifies it from being the second most powerful option in my mind.
Maybe the word "powerful" is being used differently here, but I don't know what definition they could be using.
I don't understand how these article writers are doing more good than harm.