We are now in an era where the only browsers people think about are Chromium reskins and forks.
I've been using SSL and TLS longer than some of the knobends programming these fucking things have been alive. There is a difference between being opinionated and a dick. FF is opinionated and Cr is a dick.
To be fair: FF and Cr have an equally awful "show me the fucking cert and stop making my life more miserable" workflow. Why is it such a drawn out routine to see the cert details? I personally spend a lot ... a lot of my time with SSL/TLS - and you fuckwits literally make my life harder by hiding it away in some silly "don't worry your pretty head" thing.
My first browser was telnet and I am mildly irritated.
FF is the least irritating of a bad lot. I'd really like a "programmer's build" or something, with knobs for this stuff - FF used to be better about exposing them in preferences, even if it was a bit obscure.
I can usually get by with curl and/or wget for troubleshooting purposes, but dealing with broken things you actually need to use to fix is far more annoying than it should be, "for my own good".
The thing that irrationally irritates me the most about FF is the uncounted minutes of my life spent waiting for the countdown buttons to let me click them.
I can't help but think that there are people in Google/Mozzie/n Co that simply put up with all this nonsense.
Has anyone, developing a browser ever bothered to think that the audience is quite diverse, that say, there are multiple uses for a browser? Also that there are different people using the bloody things? My wife has rather different use cases for her browser than I do.
The lack of imagination from web browser developers - or at least their directors or specifiers is absolutely breathtaking.
You will have to do rather better than "Here be dragons" etc as a UI for this sort of thing.
Better than Konqueror?
The web today is very different to how it was in 2003
"Konqueror is a web browser, file manager and universal document viewer. Starting Points Introduction Tips Specifications"
Firefox's defaults are terrible, but most unhelpful behavior can be disabled in about:config.
No one is served properly with the current model of one browser config fits all. Why can't I have a browser that accepts that I know what I am doing wrt SSL/TLS?
A full day later just to be usable in Chrome (since it defaults to https) I had to get a cert and standup a CDN just to make sure your average dingus web user wouldn’t try to navigate to my page and hit nothing.
To be clear, my site doesn’t even have Javascript, and certainly no form submission. HTTPS is complete overkill and now it’s even more overkill overkill since I could be bombarded by half the world population and my site would likely stand up to it.
In a way, they killed the hobbyist website with that bullshit.
That in itself is no big deal, since I usually have port 80 open anyway (for LetsEncrypt support.)
That said, you raise a point I see a lot - your site is too "plain" to need https. Personally I think this argument is outdated.
The key issue with plain sites being HTTP is that -additional- content can be injected into them. In others people might be reading text, or seeing images, that are not what you built.
Advertising, sure. ISPs have fine that, but that's the least problem. What about injecting a political endorsement? What about altering any links to include (not your) affiliate id? Once you start thinking about the value of HTTP sites in this way you start to appreciate the many ways unencrypted sites can be exploited.
Back in the day "amateur" meant better (because the creator had time to do it right) not worse. Being "professional" was code for "you get what you pay for, no more than that".
I encourage all "hobbyist" Web producers to embrace that, to make it excellent, rather than to simply treat it as a "waste of time".
In the early days, sites would often be mainly http, then the payment part would switch to https. That soon died and I think you are correct.
However if it means that it makes the user experience of browsing my site better, I can get with that.
And when Comcast injects their own JavaScript into your site, what good will that do?
Well, you could use HTTPS, which trivially defeats this attack.
Then you have the 0.0something population that heard that a certificate ensures you that the site is the one you want to go to. And since it is not always the case they have up.
Then there is the sub-Planck- number of these who understand what a cert is and what it is for.
That's my problem, not "yours". Start writing perfect code and then I will delegate. The current browser UI for SSL/TLS is actively punishing people like me who wish to get SSL working. Why not follow the example of Lets Encrypt and make it easier instead of harder?
The current UI is crap for both me and my wife and we are at the polar extremes of the audience for it. Perhaps we need a faster DNS implementation or a rewrite in Rust.
Why not show the certificate details, explain what is wrong, and then still have the annoying click through flow?
User actually reading the screen is sadly scarce resource today.
I have lots of customers with VMware - the vCentres each have a CA.
... all their switches, routers, other stuff ... a lot of stuff.
Each one is secure, or at least I decide if it is - I know where it is and I keep its firmware up to date. I communicate with each device over https and I know all is good.
Where this nonsense goes wrong is that a browser programmer thinks that they know better than me and impose their policy on me, with no recourse.
My tenon saw does not tell me how to use it. If I bark my knuckles or cut off my fingers that is my fault. My browser (maintained by fucking children) thinks it knows best for me.
I suggest that the cool kids have a major rethink about who knows what's best in quite a few scenarios that they never even considered and basically grow up. That's what I had to do, back in the day and is pretty much what all adults will eventually confess to because that is what growing up means.
I wouldn't bother with any of it if it wasn't for Crome thinking I shouldn't save passwords for HTTP, even though they could clearly make an exception for domain names that resolve to private IP blocks.
Add an exception in your code for HSTS on localhost, if it's required. Or, use a container and set up HSTS on its mounted IP.
Do you also test your crons, secure integrations and terminal configurations directly on your local environment as well? That just seems tedious, arduous and/or pollutative.
As for scheduled jobs, you would just test them during development by running them. It would be weird if the time span itself was inherent to your scheduled job behaving correctly.
Of course in addition to automated testing.
I was also a little irked at a bugzilla response about a request to allow importing local bookmark files on Firefox for Android asking who would would really use it. For real a privacy-respecting browser can't figure out why someone would want to not use their half-broken online sync? If Chromium had that, I'd have been off Firefox that same day.
At the least I expected some public disassociation with the subreddit, and subsequent forks of it.
Hummm, I wonder why the net-internals URL is identical!