Hacker News Reader

This is precisely why I use non-Chromium browsers as my daily driver. It's their constant push for non-standard APIs and aggression towards other browsers that doesn't implement their favored APIs that's cementing their dominance. Not having support for Google features shouldn't be a reason not to support other browser engines.

Some examples:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17606027

https://twitter.com/Rich_Harris/status/1220412711768666114

Some additional rants:

> I like that I can search Google by voice in Chrome,

Chrome is a blessing for enthusiastic Google users, but not all people feel the same way.

> MIDI support

More access to HW is the last thing I want from the web at this moment. I'd rather that browser vendors focus on making the privacy footprint smaller, not bigger.

> And I hate the ads and recommended sites

You're going to see more of those on Chrome when uBo ceases to stop working along with all other manifest V2 extensions.

>> I like that I can search Google by voice in Chrome,

>Chrome is a blessing for enthusiastic Google users, but not all people feel the same way.

My six year old isn't so much an enthusiastic Google user, but she sure does like voice search, since it is really the only option.

>> MIDI support

>More access to HW is the last thing I want from the web at this moment. I'd rather that browser vendors focus on making the privacy footprint smaller, not bigger.

I'm not really seeing Chrome suffering from privacy problems coming from MIDI devices.

But, you know, if you aren't into making music or learning keyboard or what have you, I guess you wouldn't care about MIDI. It's kind of a big deal to me (and again, 6 year old), so I'd miss it badly. Likewise, if you aren't into videochatting you'd probably be fine if your browser doesn't talk to your webcam or microphone. Etc. Ok.

BTW, if the browser doesn't support MIDI, and you want to use MIDI, you need to install native apps. Those are often a bigger threat, need to be made for each platform, etc.

I use my browser to read, watch, and listen, as do many others. I have never heard of people creating music with Chrome. Support for MIDI should be the last thing browser vendors should be concerned with right now.

You probably hadn't heard of people watching videos in a browser until someone made a compelling app. Same goes for so many other things that run in browsers.

I'd suggest trying it out before writing it off.

The question you haven't answered is why would I want to use a browser for that? Why do you suggest that native apps are unfit for creative purposes? Browsers are somewhat unique in that it's a runtime that runs untrusted code from the internet, and I simply don't want such a security-critical runtime acquiring more capabilities without second thought. Especially for things like access to HW. Remember the fiasco with the Battery Status APIs? Remember how it's main usage in the wild was to enable user tracking?

I agree with you. "Politics" aside, Chromium-based browsers just work better. It's odd that the 10xer super-hacker influencers here think that if you use MIDI, you're part of the problem.

Have you tried using a Chromebook? It should check a lot of boxes for you, and there are no native apps to worry about.

Firefox can absolutely talk to the webcam and microphone.

> I'm not really seeing Chrome suffering from privacy problems coming from MIDI devices.

Here's a CCS paper detailing why it's a bad idea for browsers to expose HW details without careful consideration:

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/OpenWPM_1...

> if you aren't into making music or learning keyboard or what have you, I guess you wouldn't care about MIDI

Considering the aforementioned problems, why would it make sense for browsers to prioritize MIDI above all else? And I highly doubt your six year old would refuse to use native apps, given the chance.

> (native apps) are often a bigger threat

I choose my native apps with care. For many apps, moving to the web doesn't mean that I would have to stop caring about trust. It just means that I would have to start being more careful about which sites I visit if browsers keep on exposing random HW details.

> need to be made for each platform

If you're only supporting Chrome, then you've stopped caring about portability. You're making it the user's fault if they don't use Chrome.

"why would it make sense for browsers to prioritize MIDI above all else?"

Who said above all else? That's pretty black and white. You could make the same argument if Firefox didn't support, say, microphone or camera. If you don't happen to use them (say, you don't use video chat as many didn't prior to 2020), you could ask why they are so important.

It's just one thing that Chromium does (and has done for year), that Firefox doesn't.

>And I highly doubt your six year old would refuse to use native apps, given the chance.

Which native app? The one she uses only works in a browser, and wouldn't work natively because it uses other things a native app can't use (such as YouTube interaction/synchronization). Also the graphics are far superior to anything I've seen not done in a browser, because it taps into other things that would be immensely difficult if the browser didn't make them available at a pretty high level.

https://youtu.be/64PkqQuE9h8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV6rdmdZnkA

And that app works on her Chromebook, as well as on my Windows and Mac machines.

I get that you like Firefox, but I don't see "you can just do that with a native app" as a great advertisement for it.

> More access to HW is the last thing I want from the web at this moment

This is a big deal, and an irreconcilable philosophical divide. On the one hand web apps need to be able to compete with mobile. They should have access to gyros and cameras and location and offline and push - everything. Mobile apps are modern day Flash and we should strive to be rid of them in favor of a non-proprietary shared platform.

On the other hand the majority of useful information in the world is in document format. We need some sort of non-print-focused (pdf) format that we can use to share documents. Delivering basic documents through what are basically user-land operating systems (browsers) is overkill in every sense of the word: performance, security, accessibility, efficiency, etc.

What to do? The web is already on its march towards being an app platform. The next steps will be tough since Apple and Google also own the much more valuable mobile app ecosystems, and will try to protect them - but it's too late for the web now, the march is on. I think eventually there may need to be some sort of fork of the web to better satisfy both needs.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's hard to take Google's push for these sorts of APIs as a push for a "democratic shared platform," let alone see how all this would harm Google in any way.

"Democratic" may not have been the best term to use (edited the original comment), even though, as far as platforms go, the web probably is one of the more democratic ones. I was more aiming for "non-proprietary", "cross-platform" and "shared". Mobile apps are closed ecosystems.

> how all this would harm Google in any way

Owning half the mobile app ecosystem is more valuable than sharing a web.

> some sort of non-print-focused (pdf) format that we can use to share documents

HTML?

It's not clear what does not work for you.

Firefox has robust tab dragging. You can drag tabs all around. You can select multiple tabs and drag all of those.

Some google products have a worse experience with FF. Some websites straight up tell you to use chrome instead.

Not saying it's right, just saying there's certainly a tradeoff.

Firefox has made claims before about changes that specifically affect firefox performance: https://www.techradar.com/sg/news/mozilla-claims-google-has-...

Yes but it doesn't work the same, you don't know what it is going to do until it does it. Try it on Chrome. It's a way more polished UI that gives you a dynamic preview. Makes a big difference especially on multiple monitors.

As for the other things (MIDI etc), is there any confusion?

As far as midi goes, that seems like a feature that is not implemented which is different from not working. That's like saying PDF isn't working in Chrome...

I’ve used Firefox as my daily driver for over 5 years. I’ve literally never encountered what you’ve described. The only reason I use chrome is to cast video to my Chrome cast

So I guess you don't use MIDI. I do. (I develop for it too... you simply can't do stuff like this in Firefox, but you can in Chrome, and it's pretty cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV6rdmdZnkA )

And I'm sure you've dragged tabs around, maybe you don't care about the different experience, but it's hard to deny you've seen it.

This is very cool. It says 'runs in your browser', maybe change it to 'runs in your Chrome browser'.

Thanks. Yeah I know, I tried to have the fewest words possible. Technically it runs in firefox, you just can't do the midi thing. (my daughter hates watching music videos if they don't have the colored notes displayed and making sounds)

I also suggest that pink is a color of the rainbow, which is an even worse offense from my point of view. :)

People want better browsing experience from their browsers, not a terrific MIDI experience. If you want those, native apps would be a better choice from a technical standpoint.

Why are they better? I'm developing for browsers, and it runs amazingly well. I wouldn't know how to build such a thing natively (for one thing, it layers on top of and syncs with music videos), and wouldn't have bothered.

There are tons of web apps, games, etc that "people want." Maybe you don't want them, but other people do. Even HackerNews is more than browsing, since you can post to it.

I get that some people want their browser to do a very limited subset of the things that a browser like Chrome can do. I don't think that is actually the view of Mozilla, but if it was, and they actually advertised that, I suspect they'd have even lower usership.

Because fingerprint https://panopticlick.eff.org/ is already very bad and we do not want even more tracking.

Because creative apps tends to be heavy on resource, requires hardware access, and benefits from native libraries and native UIs.

Isn't that kind of a circular argument?

So I should develop my creative app as a native app because it needs hardware access and browsers don't support that. And browsers shouldn't need to support hardware access because app developers should just build native apps.

Maybe you should try my app. (try it at https://pianop.ly/grid.html ... it works ok in Firefox in "player piano" mode)

All the other stuff other than MIDI, browsers support just fine. (including one critical thing, ability to embed, synch with and overlay on top of youtube videos)

Browsers support an awful lot of things, because people want that. I can tell you with regard to my app, I highly doubt a single developer could build it as a native app that was available to as many people.

Because it not a good idea to combine all functionality in one single program (in this case the browser). It leads to bugs and security problems. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Do_One_Thing_a...

We heard those arguments before, when IE6 was a thing.

It didn't go well.

But I guess we are doomed to repeat mistakes of the past.

> And I hate the ads and recommended sites on the "new tab" page.

I don't understand that one, my new tab page is blank on FF, it's nothing more than a setting.

Under Options > Home, select "Blank Page" for "New tabs" and for "Homepage and new windows"

That should do it. You can also optionally uncheck content in the "Firefox Home Content" section.

This should be the default setting, however. Unless I opt-in to see the recommended sites, I don't want to see them.

On the other hand, Chrome on mobile does this too and there's no setting at all to turn it off.

I agree. They also have bad defaults (on a fresh install) under the "Firefox Data Collection and Use" section. All of that should be unchecked by default, users should have to opt-in - perhaps with a confirmation - to all data collection.

They do however at least tell you to go configure telemetry on a fresh install.

Agree it should be the default, but it's worth noting that Firefox does it all on device & doesn't send your data off to generate the recommendations.

Firefox is pretty good. The only things I miss are small UI things like muting a website rather than a tab, spell checking, and being able to control the privacy settings for a site directly from a tab rather than having to go into settings and inserting a rule by typing the domain.

Also video playback can be less smooth occasionally.

Firefox has spell checking [0] built-in. Granted, if you want to use several languages it's possible, but clunky - you have to change it every time.

There is also the Language Tool extension [1]. I've discovered this recently and I'm really impressed. I don't use the online service, I run my own server with French and English n-grams and the experience is very good. It auto-detects the language and integrates well in the UI.

[0] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-use-firefox-sp...

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/languagetool/

There is a tool for merging dictionaries (these are aspell dictionaries internally, iirc), and a number of ready-made merged dictionaries, like English + German, English + Russian, etc. I can attest they work well, without the need to switch.

I wish transparent multi-language support was built in, though.

I am litterally typing "happy Birtdhay to my sister!" on an english version of firefox and see no red underlining ("check your spelling as you type" is checked in the settings).

The feature must be broken or blocked by adblockers I presume.

Zooming on MacOS in Firefox is awful - or least was a few months back when I last checked. It doesn’t smoothly zoom but just bumps font size - complete deal breaker for me.