-45
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by mvirts@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Visit about:compat in your firefox. I find it insane that these exist.

Edit: I've learned that this is part of the webcompat system addon developed by Mozilla and other contributors. I see why this is beneficial default behavior, since FF has no chance of getting enough market share to matter more if things are broken.

However, this behavior is too intrusive for my taste. For example this injection: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/8a4afb4d34f8/browser/extensions/webcompat/injections/js/bug1472075-bankofamerica.com-ua-change.js is basically just to silence annoying user reports.

Also, Every site FF pretends to be a different UA on is artificially reducing FF market share data.

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] julianh@lemm.ee 58 points 2 weeks ago

There are so many legitimate things to complain about with Mozilla, why do people go out of their way to complain about the most innocuous shit.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago

I’m starting to think there’s a wave of people realizing that the internet is government surveillance technology and trying to square the circle.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 27 points 2 weeks ago

Looks like compatibility hacks for various websites.

Interventions - are deeper modifications to make sites compatible. Firefox may modify certain code used on these sites to enforce compatibility. Each compatibility modification links to the bug on Bugzilla@Mozilla; click on the link to look up information about the underlying issue.

User Agent Override - change the user agent of Firefox when connections to certain sites are made.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Compatibility/UA_Override_&_Interventions_Testing

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 weeks ago

Don't even get me started with about:config

[-] lurch@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Those are special measures to not be blocked by those sites etc..

While I agree it sucks, because it doesn't fix the problem at the source (the site causing it) and therefore reduces motivation to even do so, it makes the web more accessible for FF users, quickly.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 weeks ago

Pretty sure it’s always been like this.

The web is a mess. If you do anything on it on any combination of software and hardware and expect security or functionality you’re barking up the wrong tree.

[-] savvywolf@pawb.social 18 points 2 weeks ago

... Uh... This doesn't seem that objectionable. It's a bunch of targeted fixes to websites, I imagine every browser does it in some form. Firefox at least allows you to turn it off if for some reason you wanted to.

BTW, I think Proton (for playing games) does this as well.

Also, Every site FF pretends to be a different UA on is artificially reducing FF market share data.

Ehhh... I think a bigger effect on FF market share statistics is probably all those privacy addons and settings everyone is using.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

Windows does this as well. No doubt the same for macOS.

[-] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 weeks ago
  1. Why is this trash? It's making websites that are hostile work properly?
  2. The example you linked literally doesn't reduce FFs marketshare. It's a fix for a website that's hostile towards macOS and Linux users, by pretending to be FF on Windows...
[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago
  1. I believe including specific site fixes in the main browser release is a bad idea. It seems like many disagree with that belief, and that's fine.
  2. For that example I take issue with the justification in the comment above the code that the problem solved is a high volume of reported issues. That injection solves a problem for webcompat, not Firefox.

What I mean by market share is for each individual site that Firefox pretends to be another browser on, that site's statistics will show very few or no Firefox users. Sites that are already broken probably don't care, but they may see that as justification to disregard Firefox users i During future changes.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If they are having to add compat, it is because it is a popular site that is already ignoring Firefox. I am sure they have communicated the problems. The website operators don’t care.

What hurts Firefox market share is when regular users have problems on the sites they frequent. The lower Firefox market share, the fewer sites care about it ( as you seem to understand ). Firefox has to make these kinds of fixes.

[-] cakeistheanswer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

K, teachable moment maybe.

How complicated do you think a web browser is? Out of the box there is support for 30 years of web and file systems, support for socket types that will never be commissioned again and a pipeline to every native media format.

It's complicated, it's essentially an OS. with perfect backward compatability. (Mostly)

I have an increasing amount of bile for the Mozilla Corp, but if you're on Lemmy you probably noticed corporations don't make the best decisions for you... My question is how many of the options do you see in about:config do you think chrome and safari don't show you?

Mostly to their benefit I'd add, except if they set them maliciously you'll never know.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

Agreed. To expand on your OS comment, SerenityOS is an operating system that was largely written by one guy. Then he started a web browser for it ( Ladybird ).

Despite having a lot more help on the browser, he expects it to take longer. It is very clear that a modern web browser is a much bigger undertaking than the OS.

A browser engine is such a significant investment that even Microsoft sees it as too much effort. They dropped their internal engine to switch to Blink ( Chromium ).

this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
-45 points (24.1% liked)

Linux

47814 readers
850 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS