You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
Duh, Firefox. This is not a problem.
Great, they're going to make browser exclusive content. Locked down even worse than it is. Intentional, not just lazy incompatibilities.
just set Firefox User Agent = Chrome
That doesn't always work. Especially if Web Environment Integrity were to take hold.
While that does fool many websites now, it's trivial to see through if they have any level of competence.
Since they use totally different engines, there's no way to make gecko look like chromium
I've recently switched to FF as my main browser, but I still need Chrome for some work things. And some people will want to stay on Chrome. So for them, this IS a problem.
Just dismissing it because other browsers exist isn't helpful.
Usually I sympathize with sentiments like this ("people use X because of uncontrolled circumstances"), but browsers are not one of them.
If you have a website that requires the use of Chrome, then just use Chrome for that website! It's not an either-or thing -- you can install both browsers and use Firefox as the primary one.
And that's what makes this statement so problematic. You don't earn anything by staying exclusively on Chrome, when both it and Firefox can work alongside each other.
Exactly - which is what I do :-)
The weakening of ad blockers still affects me for those specific sites though.
Yes it is. It's not some unobtainable solution like you need to give 1/10 of your pay or giving away your freedom. It's easy, free and almost painless solution that will solve your problems. You can't try to cure your lung cancer and continue smoking.
You missing the part where some people still have to use Chrome for certain things?
Sneering about how they should use other browsers does not help them.
Nor is the lung cancer thing helpful, so much as it is an utterly absurd comparison.
That might just be a question of the User Agent being sent with requests, i.e. a lot of apps / websites were coded up with the assumption that Firefox / Gecko does not support certain features (which is mostly nonsense). Switching the user agent to Chrom(e|ium) resolves the issue most of the time.
The more people use Firefox, the better. Lots of people had to use Internet Explorer for things... Until they didn't because Chrome was faster and web devs focused on browser-agnostic technologies.
The only thing I need a Chromium based browser for is casting my totally legit streams of sporting events to my TV.
I don't disagree. But there are cases where Chrome is either the only option, or sometimes even just a better option.
Having a go at people for not using Firefox is not the way to get them to use Firefox. It's a way to get them to feel like they're not part of the club.
They made a choice, they live with the consequences.
One, this isn't some huge life defining dilemma, it's a browser FFS.
And two, if people have to use Chrome, as is the case sometimes, then they did not make a choice, but are still subject to the changes being discussed.
Acting like some superior know-it-all is not helping anyone.
It was referring to this part:
They want to keep using a product even though they don’t like it. A product that is free to use just like most of its alternatives.
Maybe they like/need some parts of it, but not others.
Eg - Firefox lacks native support for progressive web apps. Chrome has that, and it's tremendously useful.
For a regular everyday user, the perception is that Chrome works while Firefox does not.
You're not going to persuade people that Firefox is the better option by sneering at them and making them feel small or stupid for not having made the same choice as you.
So sure, try to persuade people to at least try changing browsers. But don't act like they're idiots if they don't, or haven't yet.
I am under the same predicament, but found that I can still use FF by spoofing the user agent on those “chrome only” websites. I don’t recall ever having an issue, but in case a specific functionality fails for you, all you gotta do is open up a chromium browser to sidestep the problem.
Thanks. My main issue is the lack of progressive web app ability in Firefox. I have my Outlook, Gmail, Keep, Calendar, Netflix and other sites set up that way, but can't do it with FF.
I did hear that they might be working on adding it though, which would be great.
Adding it back. They pioneered it way back, even before there was a PWA, they had a similar solution. It was not perfect, but scratched many itches and was trending in the right direction. Then they dropped. One of the many casualties of Mozilla’s mismanagement. And this one really tickles the conspiracy theorist in me.
On a more practical note: add shortcuts to these sites in your desktop/start menu/launcher. It’s not the same, but your muscle memory will thank you.
Thanks, yeah, I actually started doing that, but having those sites open as tabs in browser windows just wasn't working for me. That, and the favicons just being the FF logo instead of the logo for each "app". I might have another go, but I've been busy with work and have just taken the path of least resistance so far.
That's interesting about FF and PWAs, I didn't know that it used to do something like that. I guess Google aren't the only ones who kill useful stuff! 😁
Considering Mozilla owes more that 50% of its funding to Google, I can see their behavior rubbing off on them.
Ah, fair point!
As a person who cares about css , it’s still a problem. There are so many cool features that everyone has implemented Firefox. I still use FF as my daily driver, because, as you said, duh, but every time I see new stuff added to the spec, I check MDN, and it’ll be all green except Firefox.
I mean, maybe if the Firefox/Chrome market share ratio inverts, ff will suddenly have a lot more pressure to keep up?
Everything else that has green are still chromium based? Then it's basically just 1 that has it implemented one that hasn't
That’s true, but, obviously there’s a market share difference between those two. And the fact that it’s ALWAYS ff that lags behind, it’s not like there’s cool things that ff can do that chrome can’t.
And, more importantly, there’s the browser I like (ff) which doesn’t do the thing, and the browsers I don’t like, which do.
FWIW tho, i don’t think OP will actually apply to ALL chromium browsers. I’ve been using Vivaldi when I cheat on Firefox, and none of the anti-adblock changes Google’s been making have impacted Vivaldi, and I assume that pattern will continue.
I've gotten to the point where I don't even really care about new web features. It's all come with so much shit that I can't say the internet today is a better experience than it was back before marketers leaned into it so much and everyone wanting a piece of that data money drowned out much of the rest of it.
I'd take the current feature set with ad blocking and reader mode over any feature set without those. Well, reasonable feature sets. But then again, if I had the option of getting a star trek holodeck but had to let marketers regularly nag me about buying their shit any time I wanted to use it, I'd still be conflicted.
You have to remember that sometimes when that shiny new CSS feature comes out, it is underspecced, with unhandled corner cases -- "just do what Chromium does" is not a standard -- or is it? Having multiple implementations of a spec prove that it is interoperable - without that, you might have a good spec, or you might have a spec that says "whatever Chrome does is what is expected". Not sure that is what we want from new CSS (or any) features.
You make a compelling point, for sure. There are definitely features that fall into that category (eg page transitions), there are a lot of other things coming out these days that just make life easier.
For example, in chrome (and in the spec) you can now animate between ‘height: [number]’ and ‘height:auto;’ just the other day, I had to write a python function to estimate the highest of a menu based on its length * the line height of the list items, so I could provide an exact height to animate to. It works, but it’s hacky and gross. It would be nice to have access to the solution.
I have trouble displaying like 10% of the internet
let's see what's on YouTube...
the trick is to set Firefox to report as Chrome
in case this isnt a joke, how the fuck would that help?
Because many sites intentionally give you different code because you're not in a chrome browser and that code is frequently tested with lower priority or not at all due to market share. And Firefox is able to run chrome code.
Additionally some sites actively tell you that your browser is not supported and downgrade the experience because you are not using Chrome.
But in reality the sites really only react to the user-agent, so doing this just makes them use the chrome code.
Change your default internet browser to Firefox. Uninstall Chrome and any chrome based browser.