captainepoch
captainepoch on Hacker News
> There was no ill intent by evil corporation, but rather a desire to support functionality that some customers expect of VS Code w.r.t. AI-generated code. As folks mentioned here - many similar tools do this as well.
Then make it an extension, not a IDE-behaviour thing. Is that so complicated, so difficult?
Ladybird is doomed with this.
I hope Brave deletes this from Chromium if it's present in the source code.
It's useful, but it's a meaningless feature.
We've been asking for a good JS and HTML engine, faster than what Firefox uses, and for better compatibility with websites (there are webs that don't work properly with Firefox). And to not put the Manifest V3 into Firefox (which it's done already, besides we still have uBlock Origin working as intended, for now, because nobody knows what's going to happen with that in the future).
And I think that's way more important that being able to group tabs.
So... Nothing really useful or what users are asking for a long time...
And we then ask why people aren't using Firefox...
I moved long ago, I don't regret anything.
For now, there isn't an alternative. Maybe a Pixel phone and GrapheneOS with the sandboxed Play Store would be the only choice, but for now, nobody knows.
If you want a hardened version of Firefox, download LibreWolf.
> Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok?
It should be everywhere, no matter the place or the platform.
The day people stop inventing stuff like that and they put the same effort in do really good, quality code... That day, we might start having decent software and not Electron or React apps everywhere...
God bless old times when programmers cared about quality rather than stuff like this... "vive coding"... My God...
The only thing Mozilla has right now better than Chrome is that the APIs needed for uBlock Origin to work as intented exist.
I think exactly the same. It's always the same play.
I guess they don't want to listen to things they need to pour money into.
Read the comments from Lio and skywal_l, both replies to your comment <- that's what I mean.
So... Here's an idea: stop wasting time and money on things like that, listen to the community, hire engineers, and make a browser that can be at the same level as Chrome. We already told you what we want and need, no need to keep asking.
Mozilla and the story on "How to waste money and resources" is getting tiresome at this point.
Mozilla has already millions of dollars than can be put into Firefox's development instead of the business they're getting into. It doesn't need even more money, it just needs to put part of it into engineers who would make Firefox what we need.
I hope they use the money to improve all the issues people have arised over the years. It can be a really good platform, if they're open to change. Otherwise, it might be dead in the future.
No faith on a piece of software of the author of the now abandoned Pixelfed, a software that is not finished and still very buggy.
Pure Bluesky endorsement from a MIT blog.
ActivityPub, Pleroma and Mastodon existed before this, and they just work.
> 1) A Twitter clone without the political baggage and chaos of the current Twitter ownership.
Not the current, but the previous one when Dorsey owned Twitter. And I don't know what's worse, honestly.
Cool. Now, in Europe, please.
Hope they do that worldwide soon too!
> It seems very cool that you can roll back in the case of a catastrophic upgrade failure, but has that every happened to you? Not me.
It did, and thanks to that rollback feature, my system was working in a few minutes.
It's not. Open Source has its own definition.
You can define however you want, but it's not Open Source. What you mean is "source available".
React is a web framework. You can put Native behind React, it'll never be.
For the love of God, stop putting "Native" in web frameworks. No, React will never be native.
Hiding another AI post... This is getting _so_ tiresome...
> I consider Mozilla to be a public interest group.
It's not longer the case. It was a few years ago, but not nowadays.
> Apart from personal opinions, is there any evidence this is due to Google sabotaging uBlock rather than a legitimate technical concern (V2 vs V3 manifest)?
Google is an ads company. uBlock Origin is making them lose money...
> Could uBlock implement V3 without losing its functionality?
No, that's why everyone is angry and a ton of people switching to Firefox, to keep using uBlock Origin as it is, since Firefox still respects the V2.