• JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Pro tip: Firefox can do dark mode natively, if you’re ready to accept some ugly websites.

    Settings > Manage colors > then set your preferred hues and Override to Always.

    It’s blazing fast with zero white flash, and most sites are perfectly legible.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      While I’m glad they’re trying this, it has the same problem as Brave, no configuration. Dark Reader lets you configure individual site profiles via a toggle of static/dynamic/etc to fix ones that don’t work well. Without that, nothing will compare.

  • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe I’m an idiot, but I can’t find a source link. Is this open source? I was curious about finding information comparing it to darkreader

    • sag@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yea, It uses native features of Gecko engines that’s why it’s faster than Dark Reader.

  • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ah it doesn’t work on Android? A pity, that’s where I need dark mode the most.

  • sanpo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Did anyone actually test how fast it is compared to Dark Reader?

    Calling yourself “the fastest” is all nice and good, but some benchmarks would be nice.

    • sag@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Try it your self. Use a pretty low end device. You will see difference. It’s life saver for my eyes and pretty old computer.

  • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    On my rather old FP3 it spares me a few seconds per page load and the result seems quite comparable to dark reader.

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Although it works well, this is so experimental, it makes lab rats look like seasoned professionals.

    Looks good, but I wait until its proven and stable.

      • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That doesn’t mean it’s stable. From his own description:

        This is still highly experimental so it can also ruin your internet experience

        • sag@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yea, I mean it will take eternity(not really) to become stable. xD

  • karashta@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Anyone tried this with twitch? I just get a gray screen instead of video. Anyone else? Really like this extension otherwise

      • karashta@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The issue is more that the extension doesn’t seem to properly let sites bypass or something. I have to turn the extension off and refresh to get picture back.

      • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Websites can look at their own structure, and they can see the changes addons make to them, for example of a CSS property was changed or added.

        Maybe there are ways around that, like with the use of a shadow DOM, but I’m not a web developer

        • derek@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That’s not true for all sites. If the page is static then it’ll have no clue. If it’s dynamic and running a client-side script to report this info back, and if that information is collected, then I can see how that might be a useful supplement for fingerprinting if the server owner is so inclined. At that point though I’m wondering why a security-conscious user is raw dogging the internet and allowing scripts to run in their browser without consent (NoScript saves browsers).

          Even then it’s unclear when/how altering the page to render it differently is commonly communicated back to the server, how much identifying information that talk-back is capable of conveying, and how we might mitigate those collections (wholesale abstinence and/or script control aside). What are the specific mechanisms of action we’re concerned about? This isn’t a faux challenge for the sake of hollow rhetoric. I’m ignorant, find the dialogue interesting, and am asking for help being less dumb. :)

          I found some brief and useful discussion in this Privacy Guides thread. Seems like the concern is valid but minimal for all but the most strict/defensive postures.

          Trying to validate this myself for Dark Reader without breaking out Wireshark and monitoring some big tech site while I toggle color modes (which I might do later if I think of it and find the time) I see Dark Reader is open source, an Open Collective member, and seems to engender little hand-wringing. The only public gripe I can find is this misguided Orion Browser feedback thread.

          Thanks for the interesting diversion!

  • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Dark Reader has been in development since 2014 and is much more polished