The LWN article explores various forks of Firefox, categorizing them by their motivations. Some, like Waterfox and Pale Moon, prioritize maintaining legacy extensions and pre-Quantum features. Others, like Librewolf and IceCat, focus on enhancing privacy and removing proprietary components. The article highlights the challenges these forks face, including maintaining compatibility with the rapidly evolving web, security updates, and attracting enough developer support for long-term viability. It concludes that while these forks cater to niche audiences seeking specific features or philosophies, the significant undertaking of maintaining a browser makes it difficult for them to truly compete with the resources of a project like Firefox itself.
Microsoft Edge users are reporting that the browser is disabling installed extensions, including popular ad blockers like uBlock Origin, without user permission. This appears to be related to a controlled rollout of a new mandatory extension called "Extensions Notifications" which seems to conflict with existing extensions, causing them to be automatically turned off. The issue is not affecting all users, suggesting it's an A/B test or staged rollout by Microsoft. While the exact purpose of the new extension is unclear, it might be intended to improve extension management or notify users about potentially malicious add-ons.
HN users largely express skepticism and concern over Microsoft disabling extensions in Edge. Several doubt the claim that it's unintentional, citing Microsoft's history of pushing its own products and services. Some suggest it's a bug related to sync or profile management, while others propose it's a deliberate attempt to steer users towards Microsoft's built-in tracking prevention or Edge's own ad platform. The potential for this behavior to erode user trust and push people towards other browsers is a recurring theme. Many commenters share personal anecdotes of Edge's aggressive defaults and unwanted behaviors, further fueling the suspicion around this incident. A few users provide technical insights, suggesting possible mechanisms behind the disabling, like manifest mismatches or corrupted profiles, and offering troubleshooting advice.
The popular Material Theme extension for Visual Studio Code has been removed from the marketplace due to unresolved trademark issues with Google concerning the "Material Design" name. The developers were requested by Google to rename the theme and all related assets, but after attempting to comply, they encountered further complications. Unable to reach a satisfactory agreement, they've decided to unpublish the extension for the time being. Existing users with the theme already installed will retain it, but it will no longer receive updates or be available for new installs through the marketplace. The developers are still exploring options for the theme's future, including potentially republishing under a different name.
Hacker News users discuss the removal of the popular Material Theme extension from the VS Code marketplace, speculating on the reasons. Several suspect the developer's frustration with Microsoft's handling of extension updates and their increasingly strict review process. Some suggest the theme's complexity and reliance on numerous dependencies might have contributed to difficulties adhering to new guidelines. Others express disappointment at the removal, praising the theme's aesthetics and customizability, while a few propose alternative themes. The lack of official communication from the developer leaves much of the situation unclear, but the consensus seems to be that the increasingly stringent marketplace rules likely played a role. A few comments also mention potential copyright issues related to bundled icon fonts.
Despite significant criticism and a year-long controversy, Mozilla continues to promote and partner with OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Security expert Brian Krebs reiterates his concerns that OneRep's business model is inherently flawed and potentially harmful. He argues that OneRep benefits from the very data brokers it claims to fight, creating a conflict of interest. Further, he highlights the risk that OneRep, by collecting sensitive user data, could become a valuable target for hackers or even sell the data itself. Krebs questions Mozilla's continued endorsement of OneRep given these ongoing concerns and the lack of transparency around their partnership.
Hacker News users discuss Mozilla's continued promotion of OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Several commenters express skepticism about OneRep's effectiveness and long-term value, suggesting it's a recurring cost for a problem that requires constant vigilance. Some propose alternative solutions like Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection or opting out of data broker sites individually, arguing these are more sustainable and potentially free. Others question Mozilla's motives for promoting a paid service, suggesting potential conflicts of interest or a decline in their commitment to user privacy. A few commenters defend OneRep, citing positive experiences or emphasizing the convenience it offers. The overall sentiment leans towards distrust of OneRep and disappointment in Mozilla's endorsement.
This blog post details the author's highly automated Vim setup, emphasizing speed and efficiency. Leveraging plugins like vim-plug for plugin management and a variety of others for features like fuzzy finding, Git integration, and syntax highlighting, the author creates a streamlined coding environment. The post focuses on specific configurations and keybindings for tasks such as file navigation, code completion, compiling, and debugging, showcasing a personalized workflow built around minimizing friction and maximizing productivity within Vim. The ultimate goal is to achieve a near-IDE experience using Vim's powerful extensibility.
Hacker News users generally praised the author's approach to Vim automation, emphasizing the balance between leveraging Vim's powerful features and avoiding over-complication. Several commenters shared their own preferred plugins and workflows, highlighting tools like fzf, vim-projectionist, and CtrlP for file navigation, and luasnip and UltiSnips for snippets. Some appreciated the author's philosophy of learning Vim gradually and organically, rather than attempting to master everything at once. A few commenters discussed the trade-offs between using a highly configured Vim setup versus a more minimalist approach, and the potential drawbacks of relying too heavily on plugins. There was also a brief discussion about the relative merits of using language servers and other external tools within Vim.
This blog post demonstrates how to extend SQLite's functionality within a Ruby application by defining custom SQL functions using the sqlite3 gem. The author provides examples of creating scalar and aggregate functions, showcasing how to seamlessly integrate Ruby code into SQL queries. This allows developers to perform complex operations directly within the database, potentially improving performance and simplifying application logic. The post highlights the flexibility this offers, allowing for tasks like string manipulation, date formatting, and even accessing external APIs, all from within SQL queries executed by SQLite.
HN users generally praised the approach of extending SQLite with Ruby functions for its simplicity and flexibility. Several commenters highlighted the usefulness of this technique for tasks like data cleaning and transformation within SQLite itself, avoiding the need to export and process data in Ruby. Some expressed surprise at the ease with which custom functions could be integrated and lauded the author for clearly demonstrating this capability. One commenter suggested exploring similar extensibility in Postgres using PL/Ruby, while another cautioned against over-reliance on this approach for performance-critical operations, advising to benchmark carefully against native SQLite functions or pure Ruby implementations. There was also a brief discussion about security implications and the importance of sanitizing inputs when creating custom SQL functions.
Summary of Comments ( 39 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43361959
HN commenters discuss the challenges faced by Firefox forks, primarily focusing on the immense effort required to keep up with Mozilla's rapid development cycle. Several highlight the difficulty of maintaining compatibility with the vast web platform, especially considering the resources needed for testing and bug fixing. Some suggest that forking is not a practical solution for addressing specific user grievances and that contributing to the existing Firefox project is a more effective approach. The lack of resources available to smaller teams is a recurring theme, with commenters pointing out that even well-established forks like Waterfox struggle to maintain feature parity and security. The conversation also touches upon the difficulty of attracting users and the need for a truly compelling differentiator beyond superficial customizations.
The Hacker News post "A Look at Firefox Forks" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43361959) discussing the LWN article about Firefox forks has a modest number of comments, generating a brief discussion around the challenges and motivations behind forking such a large project.
Several commenters focus on the sheer complexity and resource intensiveness of maintaining a Firefox fork. One commenter emphasizes the immense effort required, citing the enormous codebase and the constant need to keep up with security updates. They point out that even seemingly small changes can have cascading effects, making the task daunting for smaller teams. This difficulty is echoed by another user who points out the crucial, yet often overlooked, challenge of maintaining and updating the build system for such a large project.
The discussion also touches upon the motivations for forking Firefox. Some commenters speculate on the potential benefits, such as removing telemetry or unwanted features. One comment specifically highlights the desire for a truly minimal browser, suggesting that even if privacy-focused forks existed, the desire for a smaller, less bloated alternative is a valid driver for some individuals considering taking on the substantial development burden.
Another area of discussion revolves around specific existing forks and their relative success. Waterfox is mentioned, with a comment noting its shift in direction. Pale Moon is also brought up, highlighting its attempt at a significant divergence from the main Firefox codebase and the challenges encountered as a result. The discussion around these forks reinforces the core theme of the difficulty in maintaining a project derived from Firefox, and how diverging too far can lead to increased maintenance burdens.
A few comments address more technical aspects. One user suggests a potential approach to forking, involving statically linking libraries to reduce dependencies and simplify maintenance. However, this suggestion also acknowledges the potential drawbacks of such an approach.
In summary, the comments on the Hacker News post primarily revolve around the complexity of forking Firefox, the motivations behind such endeavors, and the challenges faced by existing forks. The discussion doesn't offer definitive solutions but provides valuable insight into the considerations surrounding this complex undertaking. While not a lengthy discussion, it offers a pragmatic and grounded perspective on the realities of forking a large and intricate project like Firefox.