Linux @lemmy.ml mvirts @lemmy.world 2mo ago

What the heck is this trash shipping with firefox? about:compat

Visit about:compat in your firefox. I find it insane that these exist.

Edit: I've learned that this is part of the webcompat system addon developed by Mozilla and other contributors. I see why this is beneficial default behavior, since FF has no chance of getting enough market share to matter more if things are broken.

However, this behavior is too intrusive for my taste. For example this injection: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/8a4afb4d34f8/browser/extensions/webcompat/injections/js/bug1472075-bankofamerica.com-ua-change.js is basically just to silence annoying user reports.

Also, Every site FF pretends to be a different UA on is artificially reducing FF market share data.

42 comments

There are so many legitimate things to complain about with Mozilla, why do people go out of their way to complain about the most innocuous shit.
- I’m starting to think there’s a wave of people realizing that the internet is government surveillance technology and trying to square the circle.
- Lol I just happened across it :/ I know there are bigger issues at hand
  
  This isn't even an issue though, its just to fix bugs with certain websites that block Firefox for no reason or have other weird compatibility issues. Which I would think is a good thing?
Looks like compatibility hacks for various websites.

Interventions - are deeper modifications to make sites compatible. Firefox may modify certain code used on these sites to enforce compatibility. Each compatibility modification links to the bug on Bugzilla@Mozilla; click on the link to look up information about the underlying issue.

User Agent Override - change the user agent of Firefox when connections to certain sites are made.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Compatibility/UA_Override_&_Interventions_Testing
Don't even get me started with about:config
Those are special measures to not be blocked by those sites etc..

While I agree it sucks, because it doesn't fix the problem at the source (the site causing it) and therefore reduces motivation to even do so, it makes the web more accessible for FF users, quickly.
... Uh... This doesn't seem that objectionable. It's a bunch of targeted fixes to websites, I imagine every browser does it in some form. Firefox at least allows you to turn it off if for some reason you wanted to.

BTW, I think Proton (for playing games) does this as well.

Also, Every site FF pretends to be a different UA on is artificially reducing FF market share data.

Ehhh... I think a bigger effect on FF market share statistics is probably all those privacy addons and settings everyone is using.
- Windows does this as well. No doubt the same for macOS.
Pretty sure it’s always been like this.

The web is a mess. If you do anything on it on any combination of software and hardware and expect security or functionality you’re barking up the wrong tree.
- You're probably right. I just want what's advertised: software that uses web standards to interact with servers on my behalf. Idk where this feature lands on that scale. This seems like a pre-browser-extension sort of feature that is obsolete now.
  
  So the site should just... Not work in firefox then?
  
  A lot of the sites in the about:compat block or don't work in Firefox because the sites don't follow web standards
  
  May I interest you in lynx?
Why is this trash? It's making websites that are hostile work properly?

The example you linked literally doesn't reduce FFs marketshare. It's a fix for a website that's hostile towards macOS and Linux users, by pretending to be FF on Windows...
- I believe including specific site fixes in the main browser release is a bad idea. It seems like many disagree with that belief, and that's fine.
  
  For that example I take issue with the justification in the comment above the code that the problem solved is a high volume of reported issues. That injection solves a problem for webcompat, not Firefox.
  
  What I mean by market share is for each individual site that Firefox pretends to be another browser on, that site's statistics will show very few or no Firefox users. Sites that are already broken probably don't care, but they may see that as justification to disregard Firefox users i During future changes.
  
  If they are having to add compat, it is because it is a popular site that is already ignoring Firefox. I am sure they have communicated the problems. The website operators don’t care.
  
  What hurts Firefox market share is when regular users have problems on the sites they frequent. The lower Firefox market share, the fewer sites care about it ( as you seem to understand ). Firefox has to make these kinds of fixes.
K, teachable moment maybe.

How complicated do you think a web browser is? Out of the box there is support for 30 years of web and file systems, support for socket types that will never be commissioned again and a pipeline to every native media format.

It's complicated, it's essentially an OS. with perfect backward compatability. (Mostly)

I have an increasing amount of bile for the Mozilla Corp, but if you're on Lemmy you probably noticed corporations don't make the best decisions for you... My question is how many of the options do you see in about:config do you think chrome and safari don't show you?

Mostly to their benefit I'd add, except if they set them maliciously you'll never know.
- Agreed. To expand on your OS comment, SerenityOS is an operating system that was largely written by one guy. Then he started a web browser for it ( Ladybird ).
  
  Despite having a lot more help on the browser, he expects it to take longer. It is very clear that a modern web browser is a much bigger undertaking than the OS.
  
  A browser engine is such a significant investment that even Microsoft sees it as too much effort. They dropped their internal engine to switch to Blink ( Chromium ).
Enshittification!
- Awww, it learned to write a word without understanding what it means.
Just imagine slipping in a new compatibility fix for a banking website... Or maybe a crypto custodian...

No sneaky backdoor required, just change some data.
- Any project can insert any code they want, that's how software works. The thing about open source projects like Firefox, is if they were to do such a thing, anyone could see it. You're complaining about Firefox when they haven't really done anything, and yet browsers like Brave have actually been caught inserting redirects into their links, which is harder to spot because Brave is not open source.
  
  If you really agree this distrusting of Firefox, just don't use it, or build it yourself.
  
  Agreed, and definitely not advocating using another browser I think FF is the best option. I may try removing the webcompat addon and see what happens.
- And how do you know Chrome or any other browser you haven't personally audited the code of and compiled from that code doesn't do what you're saying?
  
  I don't, and I'm sure this is just the tip of the band-aid iceberg. Not going to ditch Firefox over it but Im disappointed. Idgaf if tiktok is broken 😁
I'm starting to question my move to Firefox from Chrome... Firefox is doing some really stupid stuff.
- How is what it's doing in this case stupid?
  
  I don't know if it's objectively stupid, but the surprise I experienced discovering that my browser has a bunch of hacks built in to fix external website problems lowers the trust I have in Firefox.

42 comments