Especially for Firefoxes container functionality.

>Allows you to sign in to two different accounts on the same site.

Allows you to isolate your sites from one another, by containerizing tabs.

Allows you to avoid leaving a social networking footprint to keep those sites from tracking you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techrepublic.com/google-amp...

Funny you mention avoiding tracking while pasting an AMP link.

But yeah the containers are fucking amazing. I use them for development to log in as multiple user types at the same time.

I think the only thing that's missing is allowing the containers to sync with Firefox Sync with a client-side passphrase. I don't want to lose all of that "work" I've put into carefully separating websites into their own containers when I switch to another machine or re-install the OS, etc.

Also, it should be easy to "reset and switch" a website from one container into another while leaving no traces that it's been in another container. I often load a website in no container or in another container, and then I use another plugin to switched it to where it should be. This should be a default feature.

Yep this is actually a killer feature for development and more than makes up for the polish difference in dev tools imo.

The irony is strong.

I'm still not happy with how AMP operates. Seems like it will mess up the interwebs. Something on IPFS along with tighter usage of compression and markup compliance is likely a better solution than AMP.

Made the swap recently and very pleased with the result.

Unfortunately Google and Firefox are a bit joined at the hip, but it's better than outright being the same thing.

How are they joined at the hip, other than Google being the default search engine that is easy to change in the preferences menu?

Google is the main funder of Mozilla via search royalties and direct funding. It's easily changed...but in reality Mozilla suffers if you do change the default because they lose royalties. It's hard to be a good competitors if your livelihood depends on people staying with your competitor's services.

In 2014, Google paid most of the $300m or so of Mozilla's revenue.

You realize Mozilla makes good documentation but get how it has enough money to do so. They have too much money for what they do.

Everyone keeps saying this, I think it's time for me to switch. How are the dev tools compared to Chrome?

They are mostly the same. I think they look better on Firefox.

Firefox has no websockets inspector which chrome has but it does have a CSS grid view tool which chrome doesn't have. There was a bunch of new improvements to the Firefox dev tools recently but I haven't checked them out yet.

Not advocating browsers either way, but as someone working a lot with css grids lately, chrome does have this tool. Hovering over any element that has a grid-area style, or a grid-template-* style will display the full grid on the page.

If you do a lot of debugging or reverse-engineering, FF’s dev tools lacks a lot of essential tooling compared to Chrome.

Things like getting all event listeners for a DOM element (with inspectable closure variable values), local workspaces, blackboxing files and folders, async-spanning stack traces, saving CSS/JS edits to source files, document event breakpoints...

You could even consider using more than one browser... one for dev tools, one for everything else.

If you're developing for the web you'll need to use more than one anyway, because you'll need to know what your site looks like in Chrome.

I would use it instead of Chrome but it's significantly slower than chrome on mac, especially from the perspective of a dev. (Not sure about Linux or Windows.) When FF catches up in perf I will switch.

Yes. But I presume the de-Google'd Chrome will still run most Chrome extensions, yes?

Firefox and Chrome use the same extension system. Any chrome extension should pretty much just work for firefox.

Curious but which part is "insanely" better than others?