Firefox Containers Preview | Hacker News Reader

Firefox Containers Preview

blog.mozilla.org

461 pointstwapi129 comments

I’ve been using Firefox Containers for years through Mozilla’s Multi-Account Containers extension.[1] Now that container management is available directly in Firefox, I’d prefer to use the native implementation if possible.

Mozilla notes that the extension still adds some functionality:

> “Installing the Multi-Account Containers extension developed by Mozilla provides a few benefits on top of the native container functionality like site-specific container assignments, syncing across devices, and integration with Mozilla VPN or your own proxy.”[2]

I don’t currently need any of those additional features, so the native version would probably be enough for me. What I haven’t been able to figure out is how to switch without losing my existing setup. Are the containers created by the extension already shared with Firefox’s native container manager, or is there some migration process? Can I safely uninstall the extension and keep my existing containers, names, colors, icons, cookies, and active sessions?

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

[2] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain...

Back in like 2017? or 2018 when Containers came out for Firefox, I used the Multi-Account Containers Extension to manage QA testing of web apps, I'd have a container labeled for the user I wanted to log in as and test. It's insanely useful for the web.

What's also interesting is Tor Browser could probably take full advantage of containers later on, but I'm not sure if they would come up with a specific way of using it or just disable it.

> site-specific container assignments

This is (or was, before I switched to Vivaldi) the killer feature of Firefox containers for me. I could banish certain tracking-heavy sites to their own containers so that they could only track where I've been on their own properties and not across the whole web. (Without having to remember to switch to their containers beforehand.) So I guess if I go back to Firefox, I'll still have to use the extension.

And maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought that containers did more than just separate the cookie jars? I really like using Vivaldi/Chrome's separate profiles because then I can have separate extensions/settings/polices/etc for each one. Some sites don't get along with certain extensions.

For me, this is almost an anti-feature. I still use it for a few sites, but the real killer feature of containers is that it becomes a breeze to use the same service with different accounts & identities, without logging in and out, and no shared state. Pinning a site to a container breaks that.

They are definitely orthogonal use cases. I find I prefer Profiles for different accounts/identities more than Containers (including profiles being very different windows of Firefox reducing confusion of which identity I'm looking at). Containers I like using for those hard privacy walls of pinned sites to avoid more "personalized" ads. But the flexibility exists to mix and match and use Containers and Profiles for either/both use cases. I don't think there's a "wrong way" to use them, just your personal preferred way.

Profiles for separation is good for large differences like work and personal life, but I find the lack of shared history, bookmarks, and add-ons to be a pain. Running them simultaneously is annoying because only one profile is considered your default browser, which can receive external links, e.g. from your email client.

There are some good add-ons to pin bookmarks to specific containers, which helps.

> use the same service with different accounts & identities

Last week, I needed to do Google Takeout on a doz different user accounts (hours between request and availability). In a few seconds, I had a doz temp containers to keep the sessions alive and isolated, until the downloads showed up.

I use sidebery to set up rules so I can get the best of both... Parallel logins and automatic pinning

> Can I safely uninstall the extension and keep my existing containers, names, colors, icons, cookies, and active sessions?

Great question.

As a very satisfied, long time user of 2 extensions in combination, Temporary Containers and Firefox Multi-Account Containers, I wonder the same thing.

I found out the hard way some time back that simply disabling (not even removing it) and re-enabling the Firefox Multi-Account Containers extension would cause all the painstakingly set up containers and their saved credentials/data to get "lost".

If there were to be a way to "export" and "import" sets of named containers with their settings and data, that would be great for not losing which-site-maps-to-which-container-and-is-already-signed-in (whether natively or within an extension).

> Now that container management is available directly in Firefox, I’d prefer to use the native implementation if possible.

It's been available for years in stable, including the management page on the settings, if you enable them in about:config (privacy.userContext.enabled and privacy.userContext.ui.enabled). Plenty of us have been using them for a long long time without extensions.

Based on the list of features, the announcement appears to just be flipping those settings on by default.

> Are the containers created by the extension already shared with Firefox’s native container manager, or is there some migration process? Can I safely uninstall the extension and keep my existing containers, names, colors, icons, cookies, and active sessions?

Most likely those addons flipped at least the first setting and just used the native implementation with their own interface. After Quantum and Electrolysis, Firefox was a lot more locked down and addons couldn't do stuff like this on their own. There was a previous thread a few days ago where a bunch of us were confused because we had these enabled and didn't remember enabling it, and some replies suggested the addons flipped the about:config setting.

Edit: I just found my old comment in this post, the old post I was referring to is this one. It's been resurfaced from 3 days ago.

> if you enable them in about:config (privacy.userContext.enabled and privacy.userContext.ui.enabled)

This would be my definition of not available as a native user-accessible feature versus what they are launching now.

> [...] integration with Mozilla VPN or your own proxy [...]

This one is one of my favorite things about Firefox containers. I love being able to only route a given streaming or banking site through my home network when traveling without incurring the latency and bandwidth hit on my other browsing.

Unfortunately Firefox's native "VPN" (the new, built-in, free, Fastly-powered one that's actually a proxy) seems to have broken this feature; I hope they'll fix that at some point.

I use the proxy feature extensively as a network administrator, it is quite frequent that I need to SSH tunnel to get to the Web UI of a remote resource (for security or at least as often to bypass a routing deficiency I am troubleshooting) and before Multi-account Containers I'd basically have to fire up a completely different browser since the proxy settings I use would control every tab and every site I tried to reach.

With Multi-account containers I get to choose which tabs use the proxy :)

Firefox's Multi-Account Containers changed the game for me back in 2018 or 2019, and is what got me to switch back to Firefox for 95% of my personal browser use. The "Always open {{domain}} in this container" and the ability to open a specific container with a keyboard shortcut seem like small things, but I can't imagine life without them anymore.

I never understood why it was set off to the side in an (official, first-party) extension, because I was always afraid they would one day stop supporting it. Now when I explain to people why I prefer Firefox, I don't have to explain "There's this extension, don't worry it's official, that allows me to..." I can just say "It has containers built-in. They're great. Try them."

Yep, same here

MAC + Temporary Containers extension is how web browsing should be handled by default imo

No website deserves permanence of any data in my browser unless I so choose

I haven't seen similar functionality in any of the new generation of browsers, nor any of the Firefox spinoffs as-yet

Fyi Kagi's Orion browser also supports containers

https://help.kagi.com/orion/features/containers.html

It's not open source.

>I haven't seen similar functionality in any [other] browsers

Brave has been advertising their new containers but I haven't tried them yet. https://brave.com/blog/containers/

Given Google's hostility toward non-chromium browsers, it's on my check-it-out list

Brave containers are great.

They also have vertical tabs built in which is my preferred tab layout and is missing from Chrome

Chrome just got vertical tabs, apparently.

Good that they are integrating that into the main browser.

For me the big use case is having different Google accounts active in one window. Work and private. And when I was doing freelance projects, I sometimes had 3 or 4 different Google accounts active. Plus assorted stuff tied to those accounts. Using different colors for each makes it easy to tell apart the tabs.

Another use case is if you are testing the same app for different customers with different credentials. I do this a lot and I have dedicated containers for each customer so I can easily switch with out having to log out and in a lot.

And of course some companies that can't be trusted with cookies, like Facebook, get isolated. I open that container less and less these days. But I still check every few months. I also keep my bank's website in its own container just on principle.

If seems this should make obsolete the setup of having a separate computer (e.g., old laptop) to isolate Facebook properties, or am I missing something where a separate machine would be advantageous?

(I avoid FB like the plague but may need to use it for some biz uses where they effectively host too large a share of the intended market)

Depends. Either you need to guard against e.g. fingerprinting the GPU, in which case you still need a separate machine, or you only need simple separation of cookies and the like, in which case you never needed that and could just use separate browser profiles. But yeah, I think in the latter case containers should work, though if it matters you should double check what exactly they do and don't separate.

This has been one of my use cases for the Multi-Account Containers extension for some time now. It's actually such a motivating use case that one of Firefox explorations into a "simpler" focused UX alternative to the Multi-Account Container extension is called "Facebook Container" and does only that, isolate Facebook, specifically into its own Container.

As noted, it can't defeat all forms of device fingerprinting, but it does defeat cookie tracking.

Yeah, one of the ways I was sure the Facebook Container works is that although I pay for Youtube Premium and so ordinarily my Youtube doesn't have adverts etc inside the Facebook Container since it has no idea who I am, a Youtube video has adverts.

Facebook is so toxic now that I can't imagine allowing that to contaminate everything else. I saw today an advert which has been carefully designed to rage bait idiots, so that they can believe they're protesting government policy which doesn't exist, the makers get cheap attention for their product, Facebook gets revenue and the only loser is our society...

Facebook uses more advanced fingerprinting techniques than just cookies, even a few data points like IP address, User-Agent, and screen-size probably uniquely identify you and let them cross-correlate you between containers.

If you want actual anonymity you need to use something like the Tor Browser (which does lots of tricks to try to block fingerprinting as well as using a unique Tor circuit for every website you access).

I use profiles for this, I wonder what the tradeoffs are between the two approaches. I've actually been thinking about building some tools to make it easier to create and manage profiles on the fly. For me I really think profiles are better since the boundaries are harder - there's no worry about accidentally hitting the "log in with Google" button and clearly identifying myself to a site or similar, because I read the news in a separate profile from my Google account. And it would be nice if those sort of guardrails were very intuitive and easy to set up by default. But I feel like containers may be too squishy.

the benefit of containers is that they are all in the same browser. all your settings, extensions, remembered passwords, etc. apply to all containers and you can more easily reopen a site in a different container.

i don't get the login with google problem. you would be logged in in one container and not in any of the others. unless you open a site in your "google container", nothing will happen. the container where you log in to google should automatically stay logged in anyways (i am not sure, i don't use google login, but it works like that for many other logins, hackernews for example) so you should never be tempted to hit that login with google button. the separate process only helps you if you save the google password in the browser. if you are like me and don't store passwords in the browser then the containers have the advantage that it is easier to check if you are in the right container instead of making sure you are in the right profile, unless you use themes to differentiate your profiles.

> the benefit of containers is that they are all in the same browser. all your settings, extensions, remembered passwords (...)

YMMV that's exactly the downside of containers for me xD

Since Firefox (nightly) introduced multi profiles support I didn't looked back - requires some initial setup as you pretty much need to configure browser from scratch, but that full separation works way better for me - especially that you can e.g. configure same plugin in slightly different way per profile (ad blockers, password managers etc.); and somehow under macos when I have currently active profile and I click on some links (e.g. in slack) it picks up that active profile correctly

Working with multiple profiles is painful as you have to duplicate setup, and data for extensions such as uMatrix isn't shared.

Also I would like each Firefox profile running instance to have its own icon at OS (desktop) level (Ubuntu, Windows) to ease switching.

Profiles and Containers are a bit of a peanut butter and jelly situation. There's uses for both separately, there's a strong intersection of what they do well that you use either for (topping a slice of toast), and then together they also can make a beautiful sandwich.

Profiles form very different windows. You can decorate them to make them obvious at a glance which Profile is which. Up until recent Profile improvements, switching between them and managing them used to be a lot of work, including managing which one was the default for links from other applications.

Containers are tabs in a shared window. They get marked with a subtle color bar (the colors you choose for each container) and that's mostly it, they otherwise "blend in" to the same shared window. Reopening tabs in a different container is easy. Opening new tabs in a different container is easy. Containers share a few more things than Profiles do (but are still isolated in important ways such as cookies).

I have every site that needs my Google account pinned to always open in a specific container. The boundary is hard where I need it (the privacy protections) but soft for make workflows easier. If I find a YouTube embed in the wild somewhere that needs a login for one of the many restrictive reasons some do, I just click the normal link (or middle click for new tab) and YouTube opens in my Google container automatically. I don't need to copy paste between windows (or use Sync's sometimes slow tab sync engine). If I accidental hit a "log in with Google" button it opens up in the Google container and I know something is wrong because I don't expect random other websites in that container. (Relatedly, I finally installed uBlock Origin not to get rid of ads, but solely to get rid of that awful annoying content-obscuring popup for Google login on sites like Medium. I feel like there should be far more backlash on Google for being a bad actor doing that.)

I also use Profiles for alternate identities, things where a very different looking window are helpful to know I'm in the right place. Containers and Profiles are useful together.

I have been using profiles for years in Chrome/Vivaldi for similar reasons. I do a lot of web app development and this is extremely useful for testing. In fact I have 10 different profiles on one of my setups so that I can easily simulate multiple users accessing the same app and each profile can remember its own passwords, settings, cookies, and session data, etc. Firefox’s MAC seems like it’s not quite as isolated as a separate profile but I can see how it would be useful for end-users who want to have different “identities” in the same profile.

This is great, and the direction Firefox should focus on: creating user-first features that other browsers won't and extension authors can't.

I only wish it was more automated. Every site should automatically get its own container.

How much of the anti-tracking value is defeated by non-cookie browser fingerprinting?

I isolate containers by the type of account I am using on there.

So FB gets a different container. Google accounts get a container each. When I need to log in with Google - use the Google account's container.

Work gets different ones - depending on nature of work.

That makes it easy to manage containers for me.

In theory that account's data tracking to an extent is limited. But with browser fingerprinting I doubt this whole set up is very useful once you start aggregating data from multiple providers.

Use the Temporary Containers extension, it does just that.

Every site should automatically get its own container.

This will break almost all sso when authentication service is at different domain.

uMatrix handles this by allowing you to add whitelists on a site by site basis.

I should not have to:

- Install add-ons like "Temporary Containers"

- And if some people do they should certainly not have to deal with a bloated container list with temp container names

- Just let me select how I want this "containers" feature - like "open all links in unique temp containers" (unless I select otherwise or set otherwise for certain websites, then go to that container), maybe let me select a sub rule like "based on domain" or "subdomains" (group tabs/windows)

- I should not have to go and toggle "Limit to designated sites" in every bloody container I have created and I have created (had to create!) way too many already.

There are apparently other container add-ons like Temporary Containers (and a Plus ones as well) and Auto Containers but I really should not have to do all that.

MAC is a great add-on and far head of any browser out there in this regard but the feature has been sort of "contained" for far too long and not been made flexible/usable enough.

This. No cookies should be cross-site visible, ever, unless I explicitly choose for them to be.

Multi-Account Containers paired with Container Proxy allows for some really cool setups. I especially like the options to use socks proxies. Hope they will add proper proxy support later.

What are the cool setups with proxies?

It allows me to access different networks (that might only be reachable via jumphosts or similar) from the same browser. Also at work - some required browser based tools are only accessible via specific proxies. With container specific proxies that's a breeze.

interesting. i was not aware of that feature. this will be very useful.

> the options to use socks proxies

I pair it with wireproxy [0]. This way you can assign any Wireguard-capable VPN for specific containers. It's extremely useful.

[0] https://github.com/windtf/wireproxy

This is great, previously I was just using every wireguard tunnel as a traditional interface and hosting a socks proxy on the network on the other end.

Managed to get up and running quickly with this and https://github.com/pia-foss/manual-connections for Private Internet Access.

    WGConfig = "/etc/wireguard/pia.conf"

    # Socks5 creates a socks5 proxy on your LAN, and all traffic would be routed via wireguard.
    [Socks5]
    BindAddress = 127.0.0.1:25344

Same here, probably my most used feature. Really useful if you route all of your traffic through a VPN by default, but you want to selectively route something outside of it. Just route it through a socks proxy running in your homelab.

Oddly enough I thought Firefox had that a few years ago. I forget what I used - maybe a Mozilla extension? - but it even colour-coded tabs.

Am I wrong? Was it unofficial? A hack?

> For almost a decade, many of you have relied on our Multi-Account Containers extension to keep work, personal, and privacy-sensitive browsing separate without needing multiple browsers or profiles.

> We’ve heard your feedback and understood the value you find in that separation. Now, we’re bringing the power of the Multi-Account Containers extension directly into the heart of Firefox for all to benefit from.

It was an official extension, distributed separately from Firefox, but it was so ubiquitous and a dependency for so many other Firefox extensions, that it would be unusual to not have it installed.

Firefox multicontainers I think it is

The article mentions this extension; it seems like what you're describing: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

I have containers on Firefox, and I do NOT have this extension installed.

They've been available natively on Nightly with some basic UI support since they were first implemented a decade ago. Some other pre-release builds have them too but it's been too long and I cannot remember which ones did or didn't.

I don't use Nightly and I've been using containers for I think that long without any extension for it.

Edit: looks like I enabled them manually and couldn't remember/find it, it's in about:config under the name "privacy.userContext" instead of "containers".

as far as i remember, the low level container functionality was always in the core browser. what the extension adds is the UI to manage containers. with this change it appears the UI is merged back into the core browser.

It's been there just as long, turn it on with "privacy.userContext.ui.enabled" and manage them at "about:preferences#containers"

The addons added extra functionality but everything they've listed in this announcement is already there. Sounds like they're just flipping these two flags by default.

The Facebok Container extension also makes containers available.

I am in too many MS365 orgs. Firefox containers are the best solution to manage this, but, I simply have too many issues with Teams (especially with Teams org switching, sometimes needed when someone invites your org account into another) and I find myself back in Chrome and Edge, deleting config folders etc (all in Linux). It’s not fair!!!

Multi-account containers is the main reason why I stick to Firefox. Safari and Chrome also have container features (more like profiles, really), but they don't work the same: you open tabs in a separate profile and you can't have tabs, each in a different container, side by side.

I'm curious about Mozilla's seeming shift in strategy (possibly it was awhile ago and I overlooked it):

For a long time, with relatively limited (compared to Google and Apple) development resources, they focused on minimizing upkeep and technical debt. They added and maintained features appealing to the vast majority, the non-technical users, and left the rest to extensions.

Now I'm seeing geek and power user favorites like a built-in color picker, PDF editing features, and now multi-account containers moved into the browser. What changed? Are they focusing on different audience? Do they have new resources so that they can afford maintaining all these additional, more niche features?

Partly they're just exposing existing features. Containers were part of the browser already, the UI just didn't show them by default.

I'm still waiting for them to add a UI option to enable the `privacy.resistFingerprinting` setting.

Their previous strategy of being a nominally more ethical Chrome clone was a slow suicide.

I am a big user of the multi-account containers extension. It is nice to keep banking in one container, Amazon in its own container, social media in its own, and so on.

Syncing across device and always reopening a certain site/domain inside a specific container are must-have features, so I think I'll keep using the extension until they are available natively.

But Firefox also has browser profiles now (something I wanted for so long I moved back to chrome to get it), so what’s the purpose of first-party containers now? Don’t browser profiles provide a more robust, very visible delineation between different accounts/user profiles?

A profile is a full new browser, these containers are just tabs. So they mix into the current browser window.

They are much more lightweight, and the workflow is better, just switch tabs.

Firefox has had profiles for a long time (via about:profiles and a command-line argument). Unfortunately, the new profiles are not compatible with the old ones and cannot be migrated.

Firefox added a layer on top to allow to show the list of profiles in the UI.

I recently started a new job and built 3 profiles on Windows, then switched to Ubuntu. The migration of my profiles was painful because of that new layer: migration of each profile was working fine, but didn't see each other.

Thankfully Claude was helpful to debug and fix the settings. I had to edit SQLite databases.

Please Firefox, just implement workspaces. I'm tired of 10 windows, that I have created to segregate for each type of browsing, launching at startup and then me accidentally closing one and again having to manually add the tabs back. Don't even need to make it mandatory, just make it optional. Vivaldi has spoiled me with this and it is very hard to switch to another browser that doesn't have it.

Excellent job making containers native. Just go one more step.

There is functionality to reopen the last closed window, and also a keyboard shortcut for it. IIRC, the shortcut is Ctrl+Shift+N (on Windows and Linux).

Yes, it is a saving grace and I do use it in case of accidental closure. However, the workspace feature avoids having to manage multiple windows and generally feels snappier because it doesn't have to load/show all the windows at startup. Coupled with shortcuts to switch workspaces, it just feels more organized.

I'm not a Vivaldi user, but just based off their feature page, you might be interested to check out some of the features/extensions:

1. Firefox's native tab groups [^1]

2. Sidebery's panels (if you don't mind vertical tabs) [^2]

3. Simple Tab Groups [^3]

[1]: https://www.firefox.com/en-US/features/tab-groups/

[2]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sidebery/

[3]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/simple-tab-gr...

I have used tab groups and found then to be basically eating into horizontal tab space, once I created a bunch. Workspaces don't have that problem. I have tried vertical tabs but never felt comfortable with them.

I'm a little confused here, I've been using the containers feature already for years now on Firefox. And I have no add-on installed for it, it just works.

So what is it that they're adding?

Kubernetes

Serious answer:

> For almost a decade, many of you have relied on our Multi-Account Containers extension to keep work, personal, and privacy-sensitive browsing separate without needing multiple browsers or profiles.

I'm confused too, maybe it's preinstalled, but disabled?

I remember seeing this Fb container symbol in a tab from time to time in my private machine, but I think I did enable something in advance.

Or it's that I just see it extremely rarely due to uBlock origin.

You could have containers but the software itself had no way to manage them. The extension provided the de facto default way to manage them. I think now they are baking the functionality in. I wish they would actually flesh out split tabs. It is so barebones it pissed me off enough to sort of stop using Firefox on a few boxes altogether after decades of use.The browser seems to be the last thing on this company's mind.

No, it's at about:preferences#containers and has been for years if you turn it on in about:config (privacy.userContext.enabled and privacy.userContext.ui.enabled).

> So what is it that they're adding?

They enable it by default without having to go to about:config or install an extension that use the container capabilities.

You have probably done one or the other a long time ago without remembering it.

I have had four or five different Firefox profiles for years. That nicely separates everything I do in these different contexts. I've never understood what capability containers really add to that. Maybe this was explained back when containers were introduced and I missed it, but it really seems like Mozilla has spent a lot of work here for something that already existed with profiles.

Edit: this is addressed in another comment thread, no need to respond here.

My guess as to what's new here is... nothing.

I'm thinking they will change the containers preference to default to on, and if the extension enabled the preference before maybe that's being removed. Otherwise the containers functionality in Firefox or the extensions in the extensions remain exactly as they were before.

So you still need the extension as it has the critical functionality of Ctrl-Shift-1 to open a new tab of the first container type.

Extensions per container would be a great addition if they don't already have that planned or available. Sometimes an extensions for privacy or security interferes with a website and if I could fork my base enabled extensions then disable a few for just that site it could keep things more compact and organized instead of having to clone a profile for every website with issues.

The "per container" number of features that come to mind is never ending. For example, I'd love to have something like Safari's "Profile bookmarks" that allow you to set a different subset of your global bookmarks as the root of your bookmark bar per profile. This is insanely useful.

Well it came to me that I could write that as an extension with Claude Code. And it's showing good progress.

This is not new, and it's weird that this blog post doesn't acknowledge that.

A a snapshot from 2017 [0] of their docs show the UI for this very feature. A snapshot from 2023 of their knowledge base [1] says that "Firefox Containers is a basic built-in feature".

I just created a new profile in Firefox 140 ESR, started it in safe mode (which disables extensions), enabled "privacy.userContext.enabled" in about:config - and there you go, native containers accessible from File -> New Container Tab.

I'm not talking about the Multi-Account Containers extension. There are no extensions installed or enabled. It comes with Firefox 140 ESR, without extensions.

The Containers feature is already a "native, first-party feature" in older versions of Firefox. Firefox already has a "first-party version of containers". They have already brought it "directly into the heart of Firefox for all to benefit".

So what are they talking about in this blog post? Are they simply flipping the config setting to true by default? Are they replacing the existing "Containers" feature with a new feature which is also called "Containers"? Are they rebranding the Multi-Account Containers extension as "Containers" and making it built-in (seemingly not, since apparently "Not all of the features of the add-on are available in the first-party version of containers").

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20170821073747/https://developer...

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230307151023/https://support.m...

the Multi-Account Containers extension always only added additional UI functions to manage containers. it was never a different container implementation. so they are migrating UI features from the extensions back into the core.

"Not all of the features of the add-on are available in the first-party version of containers just yet, we’re still building them out."

the migration is not complete yet. i expect that eventually the extension will be made redundant.

Except this announcement only lists features already available natively (also enable privacy.userContext.ui.enabled for them), that's why it's confusing.

I'd love to be able to specify containers on bookmarks. That's the biggest missing feature for me still.

Same!

You can right-click and open in a specific container tab but I dislike the extra step, bookmarks really should be able to be set for a specific container.

Reading through the comments here someone said:

> There are some good add-ons to pin bookmarks to specific containers, which helps.

Might have to go hunting for that but IMHO this should be a built-in feature!

> I'd love to be able to specify containers on bookmarks. That's the biggest missing feature for me still.

That sounds like a nice hello world Firefox extension project. Why not give it a try?

The only feature I need to make containers complete is setting a container as the current container for external links.

It's a real pain to click links in slack/etc open in the wrong account. I would be okay with some type of "links currently open in which container" setting, and changing that as needed. Or some selector when external.

I hope they improve the UI, it has been difficult to use. Several menus with different random functionality that don’t have the options I’m looking for. Many times I have to hunt through the extension preferences to do simple things.

Also the “temporary container” extension is quite useful and closer to what I need in the first place.

I would love to see a better UI for

  - Forcing container usage/default window popup for assigning sites to containers
  - Viewing a list of websites assigned per container

That said I think containers are a great idea, I currently use it to isolate Meta and Amazon sites. Could probably be doing more.

Containers are really awesome and I thought Mozilla would jump on them. But nothing ever happened they are barebones and there is so much more that could be added. The only thing we have is taking them from an extension to in-browser which changes nothing for the user.

Hopefully this is a signal that they are starting to take it more seriously and will add more futures.

Huh, I'd been using this through Sidebery for so long I thought it was a built in feature.

Amazing news. Wonder if this will be synced on multiple machines through Mozilla Connect, since that wasn't the case with the Mozilla’s Multi-Account Containers extension before.

I hope it is, since it was a major pain point before.

The Multi-account containers extension does sync via Firefox sync, but you have to go into the extension's settings in each browser and manually enable it. Annoying, and took me a while to find it, but it's there at least. Hopefully won't be necessary to manually switch on once containers are a part of Firefox proper.

Is there a way to assign certain domains to always open in a certain container? e.g., if I type the url of my bank that it immediately becomes a banking container? That would be great.

Within the Multi-Account Containers extension (Mozilla's extension) you can setup this, so I guess they will implement it also.

The behaviour is, before requesting the domain, to ask you if you want to open such domain in its assigned container or if you want to continue using the current open tab/container. You can also select the Don't ask me again option. (among other useful options, like if this should be done opening a new tab).

Yes, if you click the extension menu, there's a button that says "Always Open This Site in..."

Very cool. This should be a default feature in all browsers.

For once, that's a great thing. I'm glad Firefox includes it directly into the app, but could we also use that opportunity to get it to work on Android ?

Does Chrome have this yet? It's basically the single feature I use Firefox for. And no, container tabs & incognito mode don't count.

Oh this seems very useful, I hope we'll get it on Chrome sometime. At the moment I have to use profiles to achieve the same thing

You could use Firefox today. Why wait on Chrome?

Because I prefer Chrome.

Curious how is this better than using multiple profiles (config:profiles) to isolate one set of behaviors from another?

I’ve been doing that for years.

You can't run two profiles concurrently can you?

I have a container for finances, a container for shopping, a container for untrusted, etc... I can't imagine restarting Firefox every time I wanted to transition between those.

Sure you can. Firefox will treat each open profile as it's own "app/window instance" in a way, so if I want to use my "A" profile, it's running everything under that in it's own window and my "B" profile in another window, etc.

As mentioned, each profile launches in its own window.

I use different themes for each so they are visually distinct.

And different home pages, etc.

I could use different shortcuts for different identities, but I don’t any more. Instead about:profiles is one of my home page tabs for each profile.

That sounds like a lot of configuration to carry around.

Bits don't weigh very much and fit in a convenient laptop shaped carrying case.

It also has the advantage of working the way I expect when I want to do the things I use it to do.

Do containers do that?

That's a tough question to answer because you haven't clearly stated your requirements. It makes it very easy for you to prove that something doesn't work while making it very difficult for someone else to prove it does.

What I meant about configuration is that the onus is on you to manage all of that. I know some people love that level of control but most people it's a burden. Containers are part of your profile and move with you if you're using Firefox Sync. You don't have to copy or maintain multiple profiles or Sync accounts.

Unless they stop happily providing all kind of hardware info to the trackers that will trivially identify your session, this privacy circus is fooling no one. Anyway, Mozilla agains spying is as bees agains honey. Just recently they push FIFA from start page, then added some third party site with games, all while their codebase is leaking memory and consuming CPU and wasted more electricity in 10 years than all AI datacenters wordwide.

I stopped fighting with Firefox to use containers the way i wanted a long time ago...

Nowadays i just use different Firefox instances.

Same

Have you figured out a way to open a specific Firefox instance using some sort of routing.

e.g.

I click on a link in my work Slack desktop app, it then routes the link to be open on my Work Firefox instance.

Meanwhile if I click on a YouTube link, it opens on my personal Firefox instance.

I briefly researched the matter recently, and I found these:

1. Browser Tamer: https://github.com/aloneguid/bt

2. Browsers (what a stupid name): https://github.com/Browsers-software/browsers

3. Switchyard: https://github.com/alyraffauf/switchyard

oAuth is still painful with containers:

1. Set a domain to always open in a container

2. Click login with Google which redirects to another container

3. oAuth handshake is done which redirects to website 1

4. Handshake fails because of authorization_code mismatch

You could argue that you shouldn't be using oAuth if you care about privacy but it would be nice if it could be handled.

So when I long click on new tab and choose a work tab, it’s … just the same with a different color?

It's an isolated container that doesn't bring data from your default non-colored tabs.

This is one of the killer Firefox features. I'm so happy to see it's getting added by default!

Are they shipping it on Android, too?

Nice to see this land as part of FF now instead of an extension. Very useful feature!

tree style tabs and container-locked windows. that will make firefox perfect.

I get the impression there is some deeply entrenched individual in the Mozilla Foundation with an abiding hatred for Tree Style Tabs who will never let it deliver what users want without the end-user discovering (using only their native wit) a process roughly equal in complexity to compiling Firefox from source.

I'm glad that Firefox is catching up, but they still have a lot of catching up to do compared to Arc/Zen. You got people out there like xe-darc innovating on putting Docker containers in your browser, and Firefox is just getting preview support for built in profiles.

What on earth is the use case for a docker container in a browser?

Whats frustrating with such blogs is they won't tell how to use it. There is no link to docs, nothing

Please tell me they didn’t break something crucial to my workflow. The containers extension has been languishing for years now. The fact that the first new thing I hear about the feature is in a blog post does not bode well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com