The Facebook container is great, but I wish there was an option for the built-in Multi-Account containers to work this way. I've been doing what the Facebook Container extension does, but with built-in containers, and the experience is very clunky.
The two biggest issues are that I can't give the container a list of domains beforehand and say "everything under google.com should open here". I have to go to each Google subdomain and set it to "always open in this container" with three or four clicks. The other major issue is that there's no way to have links outside those domains open outside the container, so whenever I click a link on Gmail that goes to Github, Github opens in the Google container and I always have to copy/paste the address to a new tab.
Fixing those two annoyances would make the built-in containers feature amazing. Maybe I should file a feature request.
I also wish that the basic container feature worked like this.
In the meantime, I am very happy with the unofficial "Google Container" addon [1], which is just a copy of the Facebook container that works its magic on Google domains instead.
Give it a try. It doesn't interfere with the official Facebook container addon.
To complete GAFAN/GAFAM or whatever it is called there's also one for Amazon [1] and Microsoft [2] (I wouldn't care to avoid tracking by Apple or Netflix).
I asserted I don't care about it. I don't believe Netflix tracks me outside of .netflix.com and I don't believe Apple tracks me outside of .apple.com (and the other domains ofc). If they do, you have to convince me it is harming my interests (ie. my privacy or freedom of choice).
I know Google tracks me, I know Facebook tracks me. Their profit model is surrounded by this tracking. I know Amazon and Microsoft track me. Their profit model partly relies on tracking.
Now that Apple is forcing app developers to use Sign in with Apple -- and developers will have to also allow it on their websites so you can access your account there -- Apple will be able to use the Sign in with Apple javascript they serve to track you around the web just like Facebook and Google do, even if you don't use any Apple products.
But there are thousands big ones out there. Cloudflare, Cloudfront, Baidu, Yandex, Akamai, Tencent, Twitter, Yahoo, Disqus, Uber, Airbnb, Pinterest etc. Why bring up Apple and Netflix specifically?
Personally, I don't want to micromanage "containers" as a user. I truly don't understand why this is considered a nice feature. Who wants to micromanage anything?
What I want is for every web page to run in its own container by default. Zero configuration.
If it wants to access anything outside of its allowed domain hiearchy (like call an external API), I'd like the browser to ask for permission on its behalf. "Github.com would like to share data with Microsoft.com. Allow/Deny?"
There could be some kind of trust standard so that Github.com can prove that they are the same legal entity as Microsoft.com and is therefore authorized to share information without asking. Or perhaps something simpler that is DNS-based, like with email.
I do the same. Have been doing it for a while now, and the internet still works but I get less creepy ads (when I do since I also block those as much as possible).
I don't want to sound dismissive of your proposal, it'd be great to have a more restrictive set of defaults to prevent tracking...
But just consider the automatic way a regular user clicks at any prompt that gets in their way out of habit...
I am guilty of this sometimes, even though I try to be mindful and always try to opt-out of tracking cookies, etc.
I think the system you're proposing has to have some sort of smart way to whitelist, either by granting temporary whitelisting with varying granularity (e.g. for this session, for 1 hour, forever ... Etc).
I think Privacy Badger (the add-on) has partially solved this (learning through counting how many times a tracker's domain appears on other sites), maybe this could applied in reverse: automatically whitelist after N approvals.
What is the difference to answering 10 to 20 "Allow/Deny?" question on each website? The website just won't work until you figure out which 3 of the 15 requests are needed to render the website properly. Most of these domains aren't "microsoft.com" but something like "gibberish123.net". Good luck guessing whether the request is legitime/usefull.
edit: sounds like another addon idea: find the minimal set of 3rd parties needed to render a website.
> whenever I click a link on Gmail that goes to Github, Github opens in the Google container
Google intercepts clicks and redirects them through a Google Domain to track clickthru. If you're in Gmail and hover over a link it will show the actual destination but onclick your browser opens a mail.google.com URL that redirects to the destination URL.
Thanks for the link. I just spent a few minutes looking at this extention’s creator’s github activity. Installing this will be my first todo list activity whenever I first use my laptop today.
That redirect always bugged me.
EDIT: I just noticed on the install page "This is not a Recommended Extension. Make sure you trust it before installing.Learn more" which is annoying.
This is the real problem in my opinion. The URL shown in the status bar should always match the URL which is opened after clicking on the link. Anything else is deception.
I don't know how you'd enforce it at the browser level because obviously there are tons of legit uses for modifying a link on click... but it should be enforced somehow.
The classic use is after a site redesign or migration to a new domain, due to organizational name change, or whatever. You don't want to break all of the incoming links that are out there, but you want people to get to the page they were trying to reach.
I might have badly expressed myself - I'm specifically talking about changing the link target in the link's onclick handler like Google does, such that the link target shown in the browser is different from the actual target.
protonmail did the oddest thing to me the other day. It sent an email to my gmail account to inform me that I had received an email at my protonmail address. I was stunned. The main point of having the protonmail account was to keep google out of my business.
Now I have to find a provider that doesn't leak in the dumbest of ways.
The browser have to intercept 302 redirects and javascript .location assignments, open safe locations in a different container. Would that be a new window or the same window but with container change?
In the former scenario you'd basically get 2 new tabs, in the later you'd have a tab represent two different containers based on where you navigate in history.
Apart from those 2 issues, a smaller annoyance but I really wish 'Reopen in Container' would just reuse the tab. At least I've personally not once felt the need to keep the original tab open.
You're quite right - I have some trouble with "modal" popup windows and the Atlassian Single Sign On in particular with the temporary extensions tab. But I eventually figured out to copy and paste those URLs and manually whitelist them to a specific container tab
I wouldn't recommend it for family or friends, but I'm happy with the trade off
> The other major issue is that there's no way to have links outside those domains open outside the container, so whenever I click a link on Gmail that goes to Github, Github opens in the Google container and I always have to copy/paste the address to a new tab.
I had the same problem so I made a small extension that does that:
With the base multi account container extension https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... you can right click in any page and have it remember the container for that domain. For example you open abc.com in container "Personal" once, then you can tell it do remember to use that container whenever you go to abc.com.
The Conex extension https://github.com/kesselborn/conex goes beyond by (optionally) prompting you for which container you want. The best part of this extension is that it lets you hide tabs that aren't in the same container, effectively giving you tab groups based on container. Once you get used to it, you won't want to go back to having 80 tabs displayed at once.
> you can tell it do remember to use that container whenever you go to abc.com
My problem with that is that, even if I do this, it doesn't remember it for foo.abc.com, and when I'm in the container, links to def.com won't open outside the container.
I feel like that's probably by design. If you were in a session and clicking links, the assumption is if you're in the container already, you'd want to remain in the container. I don't disagree it would be nice for you to be able to specify domains per containers, but yeah, maybe that'll come in the future..
It's definitely by design, since the containers are meant to segregate accounts (e.g. a company container and a personal container), but a second mode would be useful since many people are using them for per-site isolation.
I also miss the option to choose in which container open a new tab by default. I try to not use at all "container-less tabs" and it breaks keyboard-only usage.
Couldn't agree more. Open default links in separate container + delete all data from this container would make the desktop experience like Focus on mobile.
Sorry to bomb you like this, but I don't have the time/energy to find where to file a ff container bug: twitter.com never opens in it's designated container for me. That is the only site I always have to "Reopen in container".
Same here: that's the only site that doesn't work. I wonder if it has something to do with the post-login redirects: it's impossible to say "always open this site in this container", because you've already been redirected to a different url.
The core functionality is and must be built in. You can't do very much with it in that state, so Multi-Account Containers is an user interface to configure and access most of the user-facing functionality. Some of that can be enabled just by toggling a couple of about:config settings, though. And as far as I know, though, it doesn't have privileged access to container APIs, so you could replace it with other addons.
So whether it's more correct to be referring to the built-in functionality (including some of the UI elements), or the add-on, depends on exactly what you're talking about. And it's hard to distinguish.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I wonder why Mozilla didn't just ship the add-on. It seems far-fetched to think it was to make the add-on replaceable by another.
You are right the user experience is chunky and not self explanatory. But what you are trying to achieve is possible. Play with the settings a bit. I have it in a way that if I type a domain that is assigned to a container, it will ask me first if I want to open it in its default container or a different one.
The idea of having a link clicked inside a container and expect it to go to a different container as a default setting, seems to contradict web standars. Now, if you've explicitly assigned the clicked domain to a different container, then yes, it should go to its container (which is how it works, to me at least).
I use FF, I don't use FB, but I still think this is wrong. Browser is not a place to decide which companies are good and which are bad. As much as I despise Facebook I still don't think it's fair.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". All companies should have the same access to the technology in user's browser. Favoring Google by Chrome seems no different than blocking Facebook by Firefox. It's the same behavior, just a difference in opinions.
edit: to clarify, I am in agreement with the parent comment, the above is just about Facebook container being a feature
Facebook Container is an optional extension, not installed by default. And you can write your own extension for different domains. In fact, people have created several such extensions, such as Google Container, Temporary Containers, and others. It's true though that the Facebook Container extension is actively marketed by Mozilla.
Even it were true, which is not, Facebook had been anything but fair to its users (and non users) in case you didn’t get a chance to follow the news. Since Mozilla is all about user’s privacy and safety online and Facebook is such a huge menace than it actually makes sense to offer a targeted solution. But again, it’s just an implementation of a container, nothing specific to Facebook.
He is not saying for the browser to do it automatically out of the box. He wants to be able to configure the browser with a list of domains. That is perfectly reasonable.
How is this tantamount to deciding which companies are good and bad? Mozilla have simply identified an extremely common way people are tracked online and are doing their best to contain it.
Same rules should apply to everybody. You should be able to decide some rules, even heuristics that can catch tracking across multiple sites and suggest user to disable it rather than pointing to entity and applying different rules to it than to everybody else.
You can set up containers for every domain you like. Facebook just comes as a predefined option because 90% of users are going to choose that domain anyway.
Define what you mean by "fair". It is Mozilla's (right) opinion that Facebook is a hugely corrupt corporation and entity, the technology itself doesn't just work on Fedbook, they just use Fedbook as their prime example.
So Firefox sent me an email with a title "Get Facebook Out". I tried to unsubscribe, but that forces me to login first, for which I don't remember the password. So I had to reset the password, and then unsubscribe from their "tips" emails.
Shouldn't Firefox offer a one click unsubscribe botton?
I don't know what is up with mozilla/firefox. I'm still using firefox but not because I like it, only because the alternatives are worse. I signed up for a firefox account almost right after they were announced. At the time and multiple times since I've unsubscribed from "all" their emails because I'm not interested in them. They just either invent a new list and auto-subscribe me to it or they just ignore my preferences and spam me anyway. Today I got an email from mozilla telling me to "Get the 'F' out." So I did, I reset my password, logged into their service, unsubscribed (again!!) from all their lists, and then deleted my account. Yes, I was forced to reset my password and log in just to unsubscribe.
Not mentioned in the changelog for this release is that in the URL bar, when I start typing and the suggestion list drops down, the first result is now highlighted in an eye-destroying bright green (even in dark mode, which I'm using).
I've also signed up for a Firefox sync account ever since it was launched, and the only emails I get are the security notifications about new sign-ins.
Not sure what lists you're subscribed to, but they aren't part of this account. What mailing lists have you subscribed to or what service are you talking about?
They absolutely do send "promotional" emails and in the communication preferences there was a huge list of different newsletters (which always seems to change). I'm not the only one getting this spam email:
Check the bottom. When you clickthrough the Email preferences link, you're presented with a list of several email lists you can subscribe/unsubscribe from.
Edit: I was subscribed to a couple lists I never directly opted-in to receive, though I never received any emails from those lists.
Just happened to catch this, thanks for the response. That's interesting that it's possibly regional, and I'm unsure why. They weren't sales emails, it was just newsletters about various Mozilla bits.
I've been using Firefox since they announced their major overhaul whenever that was, and got a Firefox account to sync with when that became available -- I don't remember getting any email from them at all.
I mean, sure, but chromium is still happy to spy on you, integrate with Google services, and contributes to the Blink monoculture. I'm just surprised that there are people who would object to Chrome on principle and not to chromium.
Mozilla is currently in a state of disarray. Diving revenues, layoffs, etc. Don’t expect anything major from them until the number of users start growing again.
They have, it's suspected to be caused by a race condition with memory pressure events [0][1]. It looks like the patch is not included in Firefox 74 though.
I think it's tracked under https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1604492
It's still open, but it seems people haven't been able to hit the bug on the last few nightlies (this is also my experience), so it's possible the bug was quietly fixed as a side effect of some other patch.
Yes, all the major browsers are on board with this plan.
An IETF Best Common Practice document saying to stop using TLS 1.0 (and TLS 1.1 which was rarely used in practice) will probably be published later this year. I liked this document's original name better but alas it's more important for people to act on correct advice than for the advice to make me smile.
Do they mean the facebook container addon will come as standard, pre-installed with 74 or do they only mean they updated the addon? Little bit confused, feels a bit strange if they meant the later (under the new firefox release), but a at the same time when I updated 73 to 74 I could not see any traces of the "facebook container" in 74, no added addon. Is it meant fb container should should be like an pre-installed addon?
Why is that being mentioned in the main application's release notes? Isn't it more appropriate on the addon's main page? This confused me too. I thought they were including Facebook Container by default like they did with Pocket, then could find no trace of it after updating.
I don't watch mozilla closely other than I run firefox in a couple of places [including typing this message], and it does seem to me that they often promo existing features as "new" assuming that people are unfamiliar with them, which in fairness, a lot of people are probably unfamiliar..
For example when they recently updated their android app, it was phrased as "our new android app" with the possible implication that it was written from scratch more recently [I was already using it]. And probably to a lot of potential users, it might as well be new, because most people are not on it.
Seems a tad slimy/deceptive/over-hyping. But I understand that the public at large is unaware of the feature set and they wish to make a good impression.
Yep[0], but if you check the revision that fixed it [1] this seems to be a standard QoL change that Firefox already had the mechanism to perform per-site.
Probably because the changes relate to Picture-in-Picture, which is not a standard web feature. Making sure heavily used websites work well seems logical and Firefox doesn't seem to be messing with web standard here, so it doesn't create any kind of technical debt going forward.
Considering that Mozilla is already protecting their users from specific target sites, it is only logical to assume that they are also improving user experience for a website which has 1B+ users.
Edit: I still cannot overcome the fact that both products are owned by the same company.
I was recently reading through the input handling code for firefox on windows. Turns out that some input method editors insert a special character that facebook then deletes, breaking input handling. So they have a special case fix for facebook where they turn that character into a different one.
I guess when you don't have enough market share to force extremely popular websites to fix themselves, you're forced to fix them yourself.
I'd just prefer it to be draggable. I have started using the feature frequently, but the button is often overlaid the next button on other sites as well.
> When a video is uploaded with a batch of photos on Instagram, the Picture-in-Picture toggle would sit atop of the “next” button. The toggle is now moved allowing you to flip through to the next image of the batch.
Eagerly awaiting a Firefox release that improves power consumption on Mac to a point where it is at least close to competitive with Safari. That, plus the rumors that iOS will soon allow 3rd party default browsers and I'm all in Firefox for sure.
There have been improvements, so perhaps you should try it again...
> "Highlighted by developer Henrik Skupin, users of Firefox Nightly on macOS will see a "huge decrease of its power usage by a factor of about 3x" when loading webpages. The change, which revolves around using CoreAnimation for rendering, cuts down on the amount of power required for the process."
I like it, but idiomatic symbols are tough. When I look at some functional languages they seem so dense with operators that I have to use some inference (which I probably get at least partially wrong) to glean the meaning. This is a good operator that, in my opinion, should be in a dynamically-typed object-oriented language. But it is not as universally understood as most of JavaScript.
There is a place for languages that use more keywords and fewer operators as a design choice. Of course there also need to be languages that don’t have the undefined/null value and don’t need this.
> What happens when the browser supports an operator the version of Typescript you are using doesn't?
Nothing, because the compiled TypeScript won't contain it. TypeScript is deliberately conservative about the language features it supports to ensure it never gets out of sync with JS.
I am surprised that browsing experience looks mostly the same as it did in the beginning of web browsing. Browsers are almost operating systems, yet they look like, well.. content readers. Nowadays I tend to work on several "projects" or tasks in paralel and for each project I open multiple tabs. I am opening multiple windows but it's easy to get lost in what each of these windows belongs to, difficult to switch between them, browser windows all look the same. Containers are not exactly good for this as they have their own cookies/local storage (different use case). It seems to me that browsers are not evolving in the actual end user usability that much. Also, more generally, why can't we have electron built-in in the browser, integrated with OS (so windows would look like a native app with it's own icon, title, etc)? Why does there need to be a separate Electron "browser" for every webapp instead of reusing already running browser with extra, per-app elevated API access? Why are browsers using vague version numbering instead of semver as it used to be? I don't know if FF 74 is the massive upgrade from 73 or if it is similar to the change from 72 to 73 or 71 to 72. And will it still take 2 seconds to get visual feedback after clicking the button in that fancy marerial SPA on my cutting-edge desktop machine?
I wish they’d fix Lockwise on iOS. Not really working. In my case takes ages to open when set as default, and never auto suggests login for the active site, either from Firefox or any other app.
Yes, it's a shame, it feels like none of the developers is actually using it. It also took them several months to fix a blatantly obvious UI issue with iOS 13. I would love to like Lockwise, it fits the bill perfectly for me, but its current state on iOS is just painfully bad.
I use Bitwarden, but don't really like the UX. It being a one person endeavor seems to make the rate of improvement quite slow.
The app itself is quite slow to open on the platforms I've used it on. Searching for items is also slow. It doesn't allow for custom types (like WiFi, software licenses and other things), like the commercial ones do.
Absolutely zero trust in for-profits, especially ones who only care about an exit or getting bought by Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. It'll be too late to get your data out of their hands at that stage. Regardless, so far we've seen that no software/company is 100% reliable, no matter what their expertise...
After updating Firefox opens this page (using Google trackers) https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/74.0/whatsnew/all/ with a huge banner for Facebook container. Notably Mozilla hasn't made or advertises a Google container (probably has nothing to do with their heavy use of Google analytics or the search deal they have with Google).
Please just fix the macOS CoreAnimation patch. It was introduced with so much fanfare ~6 months ago but it doesn't do anything, in terms of power use, for a large contingent of Firefox users. Firefox still nukes batteries, especially with video playing.
It says a lot that there's a new feature bullet for Facebook alone. I wonder if at some point Firefox is going to be so effective at hampering FB's goals that FB decides it needs to be crushed
Firefox has (unfortunately) such an insignificant share that it doesn't make any difference.
Also many companies don't even bother officially supporting it any more.
I wish Firefox had a good multi-account support like Chrome has. That, and the fact that iOS 14 might allow to set your default browser would make me move to use Firefox everywhere.
Read the top comment regarding Containers. I think FF has the BEST multi-account support. Just login to different accounts using different containers. Your cookies/logins in one are isolated from the others. Currently have three Gmail accounts open and pinned in multiple containers.
Multi-account works great with containers, far superior to chrome.
What you mean is probably multi-profile. I have never used that with chrome, but with FF I can go to about:profiles to open a new one or (according to a quick search) have a shortcut to the profile switcher or to a specific profile. What does Chrome do better?
I haven't used Chrome in a long time, but this is the primary major thing I miss from it (possibly the only thing).
E.g. we have a family computer that my spouse and I use. I have set up separate profiles for us and forced Firefox to ask which profile to use on launch. But this means that if she has the browser open and has stepped away, I can't just open a new window, switch to my profile, and do things under it. I have to fully quit the browser and restart it.
If I remember correctly, with Chrome the profile was essentially tied to the logged in account and it was possible to have multiple windows open to different accounts. With Firefox you need to sign out of a Sync account before logging in to another.
> I have to fully quit the browser and restart it.
You can use about:profiles and click the "Launch profile in new browser" button for the relevant profile. The UI is not amazing, and I would not recommend it to a non-techie given all the noise in it, but it does work....
Out of curiosity, why not have another user account on the computer? Windows is pretty simple to move between user accounts as is Linux and, although I haven't use macOS recently enough to comment, it was pretty easy the last time I did.
I'm sure our use cases are different but I'd like to understand yours better.
Here's a longer explanation. https://www.brycevandyk.com/dissecting-firefoxs-no-remote-op... By default, Firefox looks for an already running instance and attaches to it, opening a new window in the existing session. --no-remote disables that connecting behavior.
By default if the browser is running, the command you run will use RPC to pass your instructions to this browser. This maybe isn't what a seasoned Unix person would expect software to do but it matches expectations from many GUI users.
The --no-remote flag tells Firefox that no, you really want another Firefox.
With the new(ish) Containers feature, you can have different accounts in different tabs. They are color-coded so you can tell which container each tab is in. Just long-press or right-click the New Tab button to choose which container the new tab opens under. So e.g. you could log in to Twitter in your container, open a new tab in her container, and log in to a different Twitter account there.
Containers are a vastly superior experience to profiles, at least for my use. I still have all my history, bookmarks etc., just different cookies&stuff for the things I open in the various containers I use.
On iOS, all the browsers share the Content Blockers you install and enable in Settings (system wide). Install Firefox Focus (a single tab browser), which comes with its own Content Blocker.
Obligatory "Firefox on iOS isn't really Firefox, as iOS App Store rules ban browser engines" reply. ALL iOS browsers are basically just skins on top of Safari's WebKit.
An off topic question, but I would appreciate feedback: I have tried the DuckDuckGo browser on my iPad, and it seems like it provides good privacy features even though it is layered on WebKit. Any opinions of DuckDuckGo vs. Firefox on iOS?
Any way to get rid of this "Your browser is being managed by your organization" tomfoolery without nuking the relevant code in EnterprisePolicies.js[1] and rebuilding Firefox?
But that site would have to know what your Facebook profile is. And with FB domains blocked outside of the FB container, they're going to have a harder time putting that info together.
But that site would have to know what your Facebook profile is. And with FB domains blocked outside of the FB container, they're going to have a harder time putting that info together.
Nope. I didn't find a lot of activity here (most was wrong), but Albertsons and Home Depot had hits. I've never given either my Facebook info.
That helps only for breaches involving specific email addresses. What the GP is hinting at is Facebook having your email address and you using the same email address on a site for a purchase. Sellers usually upload their customers' email addresses on to Facebook and other social media platforms so that they can target these users better. So if you use the same email address everywhere, then linking all your interactions and transactions is a certainty.
Switched to Firefox nightly and preview recently; it's great once you enable webrender and mess with a few other about:config options. Lockwise on Android is the only issue, it doesn't always suggest my saved passwords.
The desktop version should be a lower-level priority in the mobile driven world. The Android version of the browser is still annoyingly slow and too complex to be a daily default.
Brave, with it's dead easy setup should be an example to follow.
The browser is unusable on Twitch or YouTube. It is so slow. It also starts lagging my 2700x CPU, which is insane. As always performance is an issue with Firefox and always will be
> When a video is uploaded with a batch of photos on Instagram ...
Features just for insta? I thought this was a web browser not an instagram browser. I guess same goes for the facebook container... what's up with building browser features for facebook? Why no reddit container, or google container, or amazon container?
> When a video is uploaded with a batch of photos on Instagram ...
They fixed a site-specific bug. It takes some creativity (and a strategically short quote) to get outraged over a browser update improving how the browser renders websites.
I reckon it's the only thing I use on macOS that even has a context menu. What's wrong with it? Or is it just that it doesn't look like those in... whatever you're using that also has them (Numbers.app et al. maybe?)?
Literally every other application on my Mac. I don't know of any Mac applications that don't have a useful context menu.
Even if you ignore Firefox's weird horizontal menu items, it looks wrong, and it acts wrong.
The dividers have a non-standard color. Some menu items have tooltips. One item has an icon, and it doesn't highlight correctly. When dismissed, the menu disappears sharply instead of fading out.
(To add insult to injury, the menu doesn't even use the system language. There's some internal setting that nobody can find which causes it to use Japanese even though my system and Firefox prefs are all set to English.)
The position is wrong, too. I'm used to dragging one pixel to the right, but that's not far enough to highlight the first item in Firefox. Many keyboard shortcuts are missing, e.g., the common ways to jump to the top/bottom item (home/end, cmd-up/down) don't work.
The two biggest issues are that I can't give the container a list of domains beforehand and say "everything under google.com should open here". I have to go to each Google subdomain and set it to "always open in this container" with three or four clicks. The other major issue is that there's no way to have links outside those domains open outside the container, so whenever I click a link on Gmail that goes to Github, Github opens in the Google container and I always have to copy/paste the address to a new tab.
Fixing those two annoyances would make the built-in containers feature amazing. Maybe I should file a feature request.
EDIT: I have filed a feature request: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1621276