It's luckily on Bugzilla, so I can keep monitoring progress daily.
1. It has its own certificate system. That would be fine if it used that in addition to using the MacOS built in system, but it seems to use it exclusively.
2. It has its own spell checker, which is orders of magnitude worse than the one provided by the native MacOS spell check API. I can't think of any program I've used in the last few years on Mac or Windows that had a worse spell checker.
LibreOffice is open source and its spell checker is fine as far as I've seen--definitely way better than the one in Firefox--so that if Mozilla for some reason needs to have the same spell check on each OS and so can't use the native MacOS one, they could still bring it up to par by copying from LibreOffice.
Curious. Both LibreOffice and Firefox use Hunspell
fwiw Chrome does this too. It's effectively standard practice for browsers - OSes routinely have very out-of-date cert stores, and don't regularly remove revoked ones. Browsers ship it separately because it's such a major security concern for browsing.
To get Chrome on MacOS to use my employer's self-signed root certificate, I just had to import it with "Keychain Access" and then both Chrome and Safari used it.
It may also have its own built-in certificate system, but for user-added certificates, it uses the built in MacOS system.
As for Firefox (on Windows), there is a setting called "security.enterprise_roots.enabled" in about:Config which you can enable or push via GPO.
From docs it appears it works on Mac too: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/setting-certificate-aut...
Firefox does not.
Which is great when it works. But Romanian (my language) is not supported by Apple (even tough they sell quite many things here).
In fact this is a good example of a dysfunctional company. Apple managed to translate to Romanian most of their help docs but they can't provide a basic spell checker.
And it's great. If you're running it portable on another machine you don't have to trust its certificates
The standard of basically every OS is that hovering the pointer over an item opens a submenu (if there's one). In Firefox, I have to click, for instance to open "Help" in the burger menu. The sub-menu then appears by replacing the parent, instead of forming a cascade near it. It's non-standard and it's slower.
The only rationale I can see for it is avoiding complex mouse paths and accidental closing of menus for absolute beginners, but still. It's not like it's not an old, solved HCI problem (see question 8). https://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html
W.r.t. it being an "old, solved HCI problem", it isn't. The link you post actually posits positioning solutions to problems inherent to the hover approach. It doesn't discuss hover-vs-click at all, and while these positioning strategies still apply to some degree with the click approach, the problems they solve are much less severe there (namely, the submenu doesn't disappear if the user takes the wrong cursor route to a submenu item).
You have no idea
> Does this bug affect OS X? If not, it should be WONTFIX.
> It does affect Mac OS X.
Frankly, I think it's pretty amazing that bugs this old end up getting fixed. Not many projects live even live that long, let alone keep up their infrastructure...
Our internal dev team has changed their feedback/requirements system 3 times in the last few years.
Motion without moving...
Sadly, my patch broke some custom levels which relied on the glitch. https://xkcd.com/1172/ is more true than you'd expect.
Also, other native features are missing. Like the rubber banding and pinch to zoom, although that one works okay if you switch the config entry.
I never even noticed that it's not native until I read your comment, and looking carefully at it now the only difference I can notice is the corners are square (and that is certainly nothing worth complaining about.)
Maybe I'm just an oblivious idiot, but it sure seems to me that a lot of MacOS users on HN love to blow trivial matters completely out of proportion. Application lags for a split second? "Utter garbage, the developers should be shot, I'm going back to Safari." Where is the perspective? If there is something glaringly broken about these context menus, by all means correct me. But to my eye they look damn close to native and they seem to work perfectly fine.
That's the stuff I've noticed in the couple of days I've been using Firefox.
Don't be so dismissive. Apart from anything, that breaks one of the HN guidelines for discussion.
Not having access to built-in and user-defined (Applescript/Automator) Services is not trivial; these are a powerful part of what makes macOS unique and a major reason why I continue to use macOS. Their lack of availability is entire down to using faked-up menus rather than proper widgets.
Having widgets behave improperly is also an accessibility issue. There are multiple accessibility APIs built into the system that practically every macOS app built using Cocoa or Carbon hook into automatically; apps that use non-native widgets that don't take enough care to (a) perfectly emulate the behaviour of native widgets or (b) sufficient expose themselves to the built-in accessibility APIs not only make for an unexpectedly unpleasant experience but also potentially are showstopping for people with disabilities.
> But to my eye they look damn close to native and they seem to work perfectly fine
In other words, it's not a problem for you, so it shouldn't be a problem for anybody else.
It's under the Firefox menu. I use it frequently to trigger an Automator service for TTS, which pipes the text through a sed script to fix common mispronunciations. I use this stuff too.
Should it be in the right click menu? Yes. Is firefox crippled by it's absence? No, because that functionality still exists, just in a different location (and if you have your services bound to keyboard shortcuts it becomes a complete non-issue.)
I stand by what I said. I'm not being unreasonably dismissive. Many mac users on this forum in particular have a habit of blowing the slightest defect completely out of proportion. Maybe they're trying to emulate Steve Jobs' infamously toxic approach to critique. Calling firefox "garbage" because of defects these minor is a prime example.
I’ve used Firefox since Chrome started threatening to block ad blockers. I have stopped recommending it.
This specific bug confused the hell out of not only my parents, but also multiple nieces and nephews in their teens. (They thought it crashes.) These age groups both spend most of their time on mobile. When a desktop app behaves unusually, it’s a massive burden.
Not fixing these bugs seems to be a cultural problem at Mozilla, albeit one that’s getting better.
Forgive me for being incredulous, but what are they using it for? While I use Services, I'm not under the impression that it's particularly common. Perhaps Mozilla haven't prioritized the matter because they, like myself, are wrong about that? (And maybe calling Firefox garbage isn't the best way to correct their cultural blindspot?)