Multi-Account Containers

[QZMTCH]

@LocutusOfBorg
Yes, as the developer wrote, there is Linux in the plans, but given that he wrote this 2 years ago, and given how long he releases releases, it is not clear whether he will do it at all sometime or not, you can ask him again, he is just now often visits the forum before the release

Yes, we have plan to port the browser to MacOS and Linux, but no timeline.
https://www.centbrowser.net/en/showthread.php?tid=3887&pid=18035#pid18035

[VENIX]

@QZMTCH I would love to see their implementation of what they call multilogin tab. I can't seem to find anything on their official site.

So far everyone relies on some third-party solution that calls on some server. The aim here is a local-in-browser solution.

[patrickweiden]

@QZMTCH: Unfortunately, the Cent browser it pretty old and the multilogin tabs will be restored as normal tabs after re-opening the browser. But at least one has the ability to log into the same service several times (during a running session). Maybe the Vivaldi team can get a glimpse at how others right now implemented a feature similar to MAC into a Chromium-based browser...

[QZMTCH]

@VENIX
even added earlier than 2017

Added multi-login tab
v1.5.7.18 [2015-10-26]

one developer, and often disappears, on the site he posted features in the form of screenshots, so it remained unchanged there
multilogin tabs work like this:
every time you open a new tab, a new session opens and it is remembered, after closing you can open it again and there will be the session that you used (even after restarting the browser), be guided by the color of the dot at the top https://i.imgur.com/ykKGjbR.png there is no list, you can bombard the developer on the forum with requests for features maybe he will add something more convenient

PS Or are you talking about open tabs? open yes, they are not restored, well, you need to kick the developer to do it

[QZMTCH]

@patrickweiden said in Multi-Account Containers:

Cent browser it pretty old

Chromium 108 release planned

and the multilogin tabs will be restored as normal tabs after re-opening the browser

I don’t even remember how it was on the stable version, but on this 102 beta, all multi-login tabs are restored
https://i.imgur.com/bjEk0w5.gif
here on the GIF I have already deleted the third account, so it is not logged in

PS Or are you talking about open tabs? open yes, they are not restored, well, you need to kick the developer to do it

[VENIX]

@QZMTCH I'm more interested on the technical side of it. If the cookies jars are handled locally rather than relayed to some 3rd party server or just a clever used of standard session and private/incognito session.

[QZMTCH]

@VENIX I think that everything is local, you can ask the developer on the forum about this https://www.centbrowser.net/en/index.php

PS a separate session, all cookies remain somewhere in the user date, not incognito, there are plans to add incognito
PSS yes, sessions in folder \User Data\Default\Sessions https://i.imgur.com/eeIDWUi.png in SNSS files

[VENIX]

@QZMTCH Thank you.

[auipga]

Can a moderator guarantee that if this feature should ever get implemented, that the newsletter/blog will announce it?
That would be awesome!

[LonM]

@auipga If you follow the blog for snapshots, you will get a blog post explaining all new features whenever they are available for testing. If this feature is ever implemented, the same will happen.

[justbryce]

The new Arc browser from the Browser Company is built with an expansion of this feature, allowing users to create separate contexts that include different open tabs, logins, etc. It looks like a great way to have your work identity in one panel, then move to another panel with your personal identity.

I've been a Vivaldi fan for a long time now, and I realize this would be a complex feature to implement, but I would love to see this option in Vivaldi.

[netphreak]

I have followed this request over the years, but it seems user requests are somewhat neglected. What I find strange, is the idea of opening up for feature requests, and ignore the most up voted feature. The deveolpers/company are of course in their fullest right to make decisions on what to put resources on, there could be a million reasons for refusing to follow user requests. But a grumpy user base are very bad for the company, in several ways... I'm just saying - it would be wise to not let user requests be 5 years old, with zero official (as it seems) interest from Vivaldi. Treat the users nice, let everyone know why this will not be implemented, and close the request. Users like me keeps hoping for a few years, and hope turns to frustration, and ends up writing a post like this as a "I give up" statement.

Multi Containers is a 100% must for people working with IT support. Sure, not everyone work with IT. But guess what IT workers do? They recommend software to their clients. And some of us have loads of clients. Wouldn't it be nice if I would recommend Vivaldi to everyone? Because of this, I don't, even though I use Vivaldi for other personal reasons (yes, I'm old, I like to have address bar at the bottom of the screen, just like in the original Opera browser, and the tab handling is perfect for my needs).

Thank you.

[becm]

@netphreak multiple identities would actually have to be supported by the Chromium runtime in a reliable manner. Not just a simple normal/private duality.

Restarting the project on a different base architecture to have one certain (albeit desired) feature may in fact be a little too much to ask.

[SkurczMuzgu]

I can only repeat what @netphreak eloquently wrote above. I would really like to use Vivaldi more, but without this feature it serves me only as a single container for the isolated area of my online activities. Firefox remains my daily driver.
Though I agree Vivaldi team has full right to set their own priorities, I find ignoring years-old top-voted feature bizarre.
To end on a constructive one - if this was put on Kickstarter or similar, I would gladly donate to have this finally implemented.

[Ayespy]

@SkurczMuzgu said in Multi-Account Containers:

I find ignoring years-old top-voted feature bizarre.

That's because you don't understand the economies involved in Vivaldi bugs and bug-fixes. Thousands of bugs and feature requests, a tiny team to address them, and the need to balance not only popularity of a request but the feasibility of implementing it as well. Elapsed time/age on a request is far down the hierarchy of whether to devote resources to it. Literally no one in the browser-using universe is aware of the idea of multi-account containers other than a subset of Firefox users. Chromium has no equivalent that it is able to support it yet - meaning Vivaldi would have to write this whole-cloth.

The closest thing I've seen recommended is https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/multilogin/ijfgglilaeakmoilplpcjcgjaoleopfi which is not really the same thing.

[pauloaguia]

@Ayespy said in Multi-Account Containers:

That's because you don't understand the economies involved in Vivaldi bugs and bug-fixes.

And I think you're not understanding the point @netphreak and @SkurczMuzgu are trying to pass - it's not about whether or not this gets implemented or added to the pipeline; it's about zero feedback from the Vivaldi team even about if this is something they'd consider implementing or not. I didn't read the whole 11 pages of the thread again, but from what I skimmed through, I don't think there has been a word from the team either for or against this yet - and that's what they're arguing for.

For example, I've noticed this week @pafflick has been busy tagging dozens of other feature requests, even commenting on some that they're being added to the pipeline or that the team has decided they won't implement that particular feature, in some cases because it's technically not possible. From what I read on @netphreak and @SkurczMuzgu 's words, even a comment saying this can't / won't be implemented would be a step in the right direction to help the users posting on this thread not feel like they're being ignored...

I do notice, however, that this thread is tagged as a "Nice to Have". My understanding is that it means it's not being dismissed (yet); but also that it is not even being analyzed if it's viable or that there may still be issues worth analyzing before deciding if it gets added to the pipeline or not (but would be better if someone can confirm this interpretation of mine).
I do agree that the team has more to do than go commenting on every single feature request. But even a word along those lines when the "Nice to Have" tag was applied, would at least give some feedback to the people who are still waiting (even if that feedback would have been - you'll have to wait some more before we can properly analyze this).

[pafflick]

@pauloaguia said in Multi-Account Containers:

I didn't read the whole 11 pages of the thread again, but from what I skimmed through, I don't think there has been a word from the team either for or against this yet - and that's what they're arguing for.

That is not true. A comment was added when this feature was classified as "Nice to have" originally (here). Not much has changed since then - it's a popular request, but it didn't change the difficulty of the potential implementation.

I had a chat yesterday with a colleague regarding the potential implementation of private tabs - something that kinda worked once (but it was a bug and didn't work as expected). We have already tried implementing them, but it turned out to be more difficult than we anticipated. That's just with two separate containers - and here we're talking about multiple containers.

@pauloaguia said in Multi-Account Containers:

My understanding is that it means it's not being dismissed (yet); but also that it is not even being analyzed if it's viable or that there may still be issues worth analyzing before deciding if it gets added to the pipeline or not

If it's tagged as "Nice to have", it means it was analyzed, and - based on that analysis - we have decided that we would like to implement such a feature, but for now, it's out of our reach (because of the complexity of the task and/or the number of resources it would require to implement and properly maintain it). Other reasons for not adding features to the pipeline might be a low interest of the users or simple workarounds that are already available.

[stilgarwolf]

@pafflick said in Multi-Account Containers:

... for now, it's out of our reach (because of the complexity of the task and/or the number of resources it would require to implement and properly maintain it).

Ttweaking Chromium may be a difficult task and almost impossible to sustain.

But what about implementing sync (or sharing settings (and extensions?), or import) between profiles?
And, maybe, linking workspaces (and tabs?) to profiles?

Other reasons ... might be a low interest of the users.

No one would be interested in something which does not exist. Remember speed dial and tabbed navigation, for example.

[pafflick]

@stilgarwolf said in Multi-Account Containers:

what about implementing sync (or sharing settings (and extensions?), or import) between profiles?

Sync between profiles is already possible. Import & export of settings is more tricky, but also possible.

@stilgarwolf said in Multi-Account Containers:

inking workspaces (and tabs?) to profiles?

There's an internal feature request for that, but I don't see how that would be any easier than multi-account containers. Well, I'm not the one who will be working on it, but IMO, it comes down to the same thing.

As for the low interest in a feature - we need to take into account the actual user base. Some features (like this one) might have hundreds of votes, but due to their nature, they will be used only by a small percentage of users. Of course, I'm not saying that this is the key factor - it's one of many things we take into consideration.

[stilgarwolf]

@pafflick said in Multi-Account Containers:

Sync between profiles is already possible.

Using Vivaldi account? No, I think a local profile to profile and more selective sync.