That’s just the thing. Brave does site containerization for you already, automatically, without the baggage of manual container management. (And it’s getting better with every release.)
So if you aren’t separating things on the basis of needing multiple logins (different usernames) for a given site, then using Containers by hand is a bunch of unnecessary work in the Brave ecosystem.
Also, as a reminder (I have mentioned this before) – but those who are sticking with Firefox should bear in mind that Containers do not ‘contain’ your extensions. So for instance, if you use something like ‘Honey’ for shopping, this extension also has access to your other, potentially more sensitive containers. In either browser, Firefox or Chrom*-based browsers, you’d need a separate profile to split those out; but Chrom* (including Brave) makes this a bunch easier IMHO.
Not trying to come off like a propagandist or a fanboy here, I was in the same camp initially as well, until I had a firmer grasp of what Brave was already doing for me. And after I committed myself to a several-month period of kicking the tires with Brave I would never go back to the hassle of fiddling with Containers. “Letting go” has been great.
Sure, but ‘multi-account’ is far from the only major role that Containers play in Firefox. It’s very much used as a cross-site anti-tracking mechanism.
As I mentioned earlier, you can still achieve the multi-account functionality using Profiles. And, as was also pointed out earlier, Profiles allow you to have separate extension sets in each which is not the case with Firefox’s Containers. (Sure, you can do Profiles in Firefox as well, but I suspect few use this functionality.)
Is one method better than the other, overall? I think that comes down to an individual’s use case. My point here is that, while the approaches are different, it’s important to recognize that many of the features that are commonly thought of as ‘missing’ in Brave are just being presented differently. And each approach has its own pros and cons – it isn’t an all-or-nothing bargain.
you can still achieve the multi-account functionality using Profiles
One of the features I enjoy about multi-account containers in FF is the ability to mix tabs from different containers in the same user profile, even the same window. Visually it kind of looks like tab groups in Brave, but they have their own sets of cookies, etc.
Unless I’m missing something, it looks like profiles are a completely separate window with a completely separate set of settings, extensions, etc?
No you’re right, mix 'n match between profiles is not possible within a single window in Brave; they’re maintained in separate windows, or sets of windows – although they’re easy enough to switch and access thru the menu or Ctrl+Shift+M. From a UX perspective I’d still give the nod to FF containers on this point though.
In my case it was more important to have different sets of extensions as I discussed in a previous post, which is something not currently provided by FF containers.
As far as settings go, in Brave some are installation-wide and some are profile-specific. I wish I knew of a good doc that delineated them, but I don’t. But for example, each profile will have its own set of search engines, bookmarks, visual settings, and so on – but something system-level like DNS settings is shared across profiles.
The exact thing you’re describing as “not missing in Brave” is the reason I’m, with regrets, switching back to Firefox. Because it’s missing in Brave.
I don’t want separate profiles with separate extension sets, separate prefences, etc. I want my session manager extension to have access to everything I, a single person, do in my browser, and not have to manage separate histories and separate sets of session records like I’m two different people.
But I do want to be able to easily have separate accounts for, say, Github, without having to keep logging in and out.
It’s enough of a pain that I’m switching back to FF. The “privacy-centric browser” simply doesn’t do what I need, except by forcing even greater inconveniences on me. It’s great that you don’t need the things Brave doesn’t do, but that doesn’t mean other people don’t.
You would lose nothing if Brave implemented these features, but without them, we who need them lose the ability to use Brave. So I’m not sure why you’re arguing so forcefully against them, unless you have some personal reason for wanting a bunch of people (not yourself, but other people) to switch back to Firefox.
EDIT: Never mind, I’m switching back to Firefox right now.
To be quite frank, I don’t care what software you run on your computer. Not sure why you’re seemingly getting emotional about this, I’m just stating plain facts. The point of which, as I’ve explained repeatedly here, is that many of the use cases for Containers can be satisfied automatically with Brave’s built-in features without the added overhead of managing those features. And those facts can very easily go unnoticed when making the transition because nobody (myself included, apparently) is doing a good job of pointing them out.
As I probably also described earlier (I’ve already addressed some of your other points as well, maybe you should go back and read thru the rest of the thread and digest the meaning), I was in the same position before. Even now, I wish Brave did have Containers. But I have a. learned to live without them and achieve the same, or in many ways, better effect; b. realize development cycles are expensive and there are other things being done that are very effective; and c. also realize adding Containers on top of the Chromium base could potentially consume many of those cycles.
If enough dev cycles free up to add them then great, I’d welcome the feature with open arms. But I’m quite more satisfied with Brave’s capabilities than I was with Firefox, in totality.
It’s a piece of software. If you like Firefox better, go for it. Everyone’s use cases can be different. But if people are not aware of the full picture (yes, including your perspective) then they aren’t enjoying the benefits of being informed.
Just wanted to agree with a lot of what you’ve said here. I’m in IT and the usage of containers has inexplicable value in separating logins as well.
With containers I can work on 3 different clients Microsoft 365 orgs without “cookie confusion” or “cookie bleeding” as I like to word it. Also permits me to be logged into multiple Microsoft Teams via web interface at the same time. While Teams does support switching between orgs, it takes time to switch between them, about 20 seconds for Teams to switchover and let me respond to a message. When you’re a guest in several orgs, this doesn’t bode well for productivity.
Now on the security side, there are malicious scripts from websites which try to steal cookies and I think other types of login fingerprints, but if those cookies aren’t “present” for all intents and purposes, then there’s nothing to steal. I’ve got a FF add-on that generates temporary one-time-use containers that makes surfing easier and rules out so many development issues I encounter when trying to troubleshoot websites and web scripts.
It took me over 10 years to even try switching from Chrome to Firefox and after just a few hours of using containers, I was hooked and didn’t even consider going back. It wasn’t till I started using Brave that I’ve repeatedly tried to make the switch but there are too many use-cases that help me on a daily basis with containers to switch to Brave full time.
I’m not disagreeing with any of your points per se, I just want to make sure it’s clear that Chrom*(i.e., Brave) ‘profiles’ do in fact achieve the multiple-logins capability. The difference is that they’re not in the same window.
Yes, there’s not the URL pattern matching either but for this example (multiple Teams tenants) you actually wouldn’t want the FF URL pattern matching because you’d have to keep overriding it.
I am not saying anything new here that I haven’t already said in this thread, but the reason I am repeating is because someone who comes here and just reads something like the above, will take away from this that multi-login is not achievable unless you’re using FF with Containers; and this is not correct.
For instance, I use multiple Google accounts and can easily and instantaneously switch between them with Profiles. Not sure if you were aware of it or not – it was certainly implied that it can’t be done in Brave, but it can.
The ‘ephemeral’ containers is a fair point, frankly I’ve never looked whether there’s something to create throwaway profiles in Chrom*. But again with the cookie mgmt in Brave, 3P storage enhancements, etc. it can be quite good even without using something like that. There are various online tools that demo this.
The reason people are getting emotional with you is that people have a specific use-case that you’re hand-waving as “unnecessary” simply because YOU do not share the use-case. It’s probably the single worst aspect of technical discussion boards. Extremely frustrating. Don’t be that guy: if you don’t want it, move on to another thread. We want the ability to log into the same site with multiple accounts in the same window. You saying we “don’t need this” is noise. We are adults who you should assume know our own lives and workflows better than you.
OK. Show me exactly the part you find objectionable, and in the manner you claim. You’re jumping to a lot of conclusions here. And frankly, just relying on people to not read the whole discussion. The loudest voice wins, right?
You are missing the point – that many users can actually be helped by knowing that there is existing capability, and they can enjoy the other benefits that are brought by making the switch, by thinking about things a little differently.
Is it exactly the same? No. Do people want what they want? Sure. Is that up to them? Yep, absolutely.
But being completely ignorant of another means to that end, and attempting to shout down someone who points it out, isn’t helping people. At least here you as an individual can make a choice. If the UX to achieving that end is so important that any other benefits (whether real or perceived) then stick with what you’ve got. But again, my point is to make clear that lacking that same UX does not mean you can’t achieve one of the main goals.
Let’s say Product B does 8 out of the 10 things that I want. And Product F does 7, but I prefer the look and feel of Product F. If I choose to stick with Product F then that’s my call based on what I find important to me.
But if I then keep others in the dark because of my preference and pretend that 8th capability doesn’t exist (and shout down people who point it out), I’m doing them a disservice as they might reach their own conclusions when provided all the information.
Argue things on their merits. There’s room for 2 points of view here – but don’t pretend one of them is totally invalid simply because it isn’t your choice. I’ve been quite clear about this the whole time.
I just want to make sure it’s clear that Chrom*(i.e., Brave) ‘profiles’ do in fact achieve the multiple-logins capability. The difference is that they’re not in the same window.
We’re literally saying that it’s useful to have them in the same window. You’re saying, “yeah but you can have them without having them in the same window.” It’s not helpful input.
Not quite. For starters, the central point that I have been making is the fact that the underlying privacy feature exists despite the non-existence of the same UX (‘containers’), and it’s very easy for someone to make the mistake of thinking that is not the case.
And it’s very important to point that out because it’s an easy conclusion to jump to.
If you read thru the rest of the thread you’ll also see that I already acknowledged that point about the UI as a fair one. And certainly that is subjective. But it’s important for someone who doesn’t feel like reading 30+ silly messages to come away with the right information.
So it’s been something like this:
“Feature X does not exist!”
“Yes it does, it’s just implemented differently”
“It doesn’t look the way I’m used to – therefore it does not exist!”
Note, I’m not saying you are saying that – just that the constant back and forth will cause users to miss out on what is an important capability, even in spite of many many others being present, to people who ostensibly strongly care about ‘privacy’ which is almost certainly why they’ve been using Containers in the first place.
Anyway this could go on and on, but instead of doing that, how about this: why don’t we work together on a simple pros/cons list of each approach together right here, all in one place, with just the basic items that we can probably agree on. Then anyone who comes across this thread can easily make their own decision based on those points.
Not seeing any actual argument over any real points being made, so I’ll continue to hold out hope that we can end this on a positive and useful note as I said earlier.
I join, the choice of a search engine and the implementation of containers (for me it’s like saving the current state), and you can completely switch to Brave
Hi @musorka222222, wasn’t sure what you meant here? You should be able to change your search engine in either browser (Brave or FF), so maybe I am misunderstanding.
I tried the profile approach as a potential substitute for the containerized sessions; didn’t like that a new browser window is required for each profile. Just doesn’t have the same convenience as multiple tabs each of their own “profile”. as multi-account containers.
I want to go with Brave, but can’t w/o that convenience.
