Hacker News Reader

Comment by zbrock | Hacker News Reader

Was anyone else's first though "people still use Firefox?"

Actually, people still use Firefox. And most probably, they will continue. And its quite good (at least for me).

Chrome's proxy plug-ins still suck. Last time I checked, Chrome still leaks DNS requests.

Adblock is also gimped because of the browser API, making it impossible to block ads before they load, slowing your internet connection and sometimes making ads flash momentarily before disappearing.

Not true since version 2.0 of the plugin.

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepj...

What? Chrome uses the built in OS level proxies... so blame your OS. Additionally, Firefox out of box leaks DNS queries. Ever tired to use tor/.onion in a default firefox setup? Doesn't work because by default, firefox doesn't subject its DNS queries to the proxy...

But in Firefox that's easy to fix.

Just type about:config, set network.proxy.socks_remote_dns = true.

And in Chrome it's automatic and it uses the system level proxy system so DNS queries are automatically included. I didn't say it was hard in Firefox, but it was simply false criticism and it was too easy to turn it around on Firefox.

All thats holding me back from using chrome is that the plugins search-status and noscript are not available for it.

Noscript functionality is built in. It's not quite as full featured but it works well enough for me.

Wrench Menu -> Preferences -> Under the Hood -> Content Settings -> JavaScript

Chrome's JS blocking doesn't allow you to distinguish between first-party scripts and third-party scripts, which makes it almost useless as a security tool, even if you ignore all the non-JS-blocking features of NoScript. The best thing about NoScript is the ability to break only the ads, not the whole site.

NoScript is much more than just disabling JavaScript: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1808801

When NoScript is ported to Chrome, I will happily switch.

at my university, I see a lot of people using firefox simply because they don't like chrome's tabs-on-top thing, and they don't know how (if it's even possible) to change chrome to have tabs on bottom.

This is the reason why I don't use Chrome myself. I want the tabs where they make sense from a design perspective next to the web page itself. The tab should be attached to the page itself. I don't want the URL bar in the way.

The content of the URL field is dependent on the tab. It arguably makes far more sense to have this strong relationship represented by containing the URL field in the tab itself rather than having a global URL field in one part of the window with content that changes as different tabs are selected in another part of the window.

That makes sense, however, I don't spend time looking at the URL. I look at the tab titles much more than I ever look at URL's. Additionally, to the common user the URL is a mysterious, meaningless thing anyway. They are more concerned with what the title of the page is.

Having to look over and past the URL bar to see what the title is, or having to look over the URL bar to select a tab, then back down past the URL bar to the page is less efficient visually.

I'm sure there are pros to the tab placement in Chrome, just as there are cons. Personally, it just isn't for me.

Tabs are on top in FF4 per default: http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are-on-t...

With at least three ways to change it to tabs on bottom.

This stops making design sense when the tab bar (which shows info for many pages at once) is sandwiched between the window title and the address bar (which show info for exactly one page at a time). You go from specific to general then back to specific again.

I wish I were on my desktop, but maybe someone else can give you a link to it.... but the Mozilla team put together a presentation why it makes sense in every aspect of the experience for the tabs to be on top, least of which is because it preserves context. You change the tab on the top, it changes the url bar below it, and the content below it.

Edit, went and found it on my mobile (http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are-on-t...)

Or are you one of those people that like the way Americans record their dates? (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0B3Gz7CcrZc/TG3Fex66wvI/AAAAAAAAMS...)

It's true that tabs on top are more sensible structurally, but they fail in one big way: there's no place on the screen that shows the full page title. I look at my Chrome, and the titles in the tabs are all truncated. I go to FF, and the title of the current tab is in the window's title bar.

:) I've got that one solved too! http://imgur.com/DO5SQ.png

This is actually the reason why I use Chrome. Just seems more efficient and logical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com