Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Mozilla The Internet

AskSlashdot: How Do You See Your Life After Firefox 52 ESR? (mozilla.org) 465

Artem Tashkinov writes: Soon to be released Firefox 56 says that out of 35+ add-ons that I have installed only a single one is a proper WebExtension which means that Firefox 57 will disable over 95% of my add-ons many of which I just cannot live without and for most of them there are simply no alternatives. This number of add-ons sound like an overkill, but actually they are all pretty neat and improve your browsing abilities. That's the reason why I'm using Firefox 52 ESR, which still fully supports XUL add-ons, however after June 2018, it will stop being supported.

Let's list the most famous ones:
  • DownThemAll is still largely irreplaceable since you can download from many parts of the internet much faster if you split the downloaded files in chunks and download them simultaneously;
  • GreaseMonkey allows you to fix or extend your favourite websites using JavaScript;Lazarus: Form Recovery has saved my time and life numerous times; it regularly backups the contents of web forms and allows to restore them after browser restart or accidental page refresh;
  • NoScript: allows you to whitelist JS execution only for websites that you really trust; JS has been used as an attack and tracking tool since its inception;
  • Status-4-Ever and Classic Theme Restorer return Firefox to the time when it was a powerful tool with its own identity and looks, and not a Chrome clone;
  • UnMHT add-on allows you to save complete web pages as a single MHT file;

So what will you do less than a year from now?


This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AskSlashdot: How Do You See Your Life After Firefox 52 ESR?

Comments Filter:
  • by hij ( 552932 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:23PM (#55154841) Homepage
    Sadly, it looks like I will be using less firefox. On the plus side I will get some of that missing memory back.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I started using Firefox when it first came out and used it until about six months ago, when I switched to Vivaldi. I use Vivaldi with uBlock, uMatrix, TamperMonkey and a couple of other extensions that cover everything I need. A lot of extensions that I used on Firefox, like TabMixPlus, aren't needed on Vivaldi because the UI is designed for the power user. I can't guarantee that every extension is replicated (I've never used DownThemAll or UnMHT) but it's quite powerful and versatile. Try it and see if

    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @03:10PM (#55155197) Journal

      On the plus side I will get some of that missing memory back.

      I wish I could get some missing memory back. Note to all you young Slashdotters out there: stay off the weed and stay in school, because...um...well I can't remember the reason at the moment, but I'm pretty sure there's a perfectly good reason.

    • Re:Use less firefox (Score:5, Informative)

      by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [8691tsaebssab]> on Thursday September 07, 2017 @04:38PM (#55155757) Journal

      Switch to Pale Moon. They haven't been using any FF upstream since the Australis fuckfest and its been doing great, just rock solid classic FF without the bullshit. They have done a ton of tweaking to make FF run better, have better support for video formats, security patches, etc and the devs have been great about answering their users and actually listening to them instead of giving them the bird like Mozilla did!

      So please ask any extension devs that make extensions you love to switch to PM, that is what I did and you'd be surprised how many of them are now making their extensions for PM. For any extensions that are not going forward you can talk to the PM devs, they are making their own repo for extensions and its growing by the day.

  • by HBI ( 604924 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:25PM (#55154855) Journal

    The Mozilla codebase has proven difficult to maintain - see Pale Moon. So just forking it is problematic.
    The Google and Apple submissions are under corporate control and therefore are anti-user and more importantly, can't be forked.
    Opera just has never been very good.

    Konqueror or Links2 perhaps?

    • Konqueror is, in my opinion, one of the worst browsers available. Unless it has a major revamp (mostly to get rid of the numerous serious bugs and problems rendering HTML), it's not even in the running.

      • Konqueror has had several revamps. In order, they were called Safari, Chrome, and Vivaldi.

        • Except that none of those are anything like good old Konq.

          • Were they really better than Konqueror?

            Or were shitty web developers writing for IE 6 only and maybe had a if/else to feed broken Netscape code if you were lucky when you ran it last?

            We all remember the good days of 2003 on slashdot but forget the time we had to register for a job at a state website and had to boot up XP with IE 6 as the site wouldn't render in any other browser and used VBScript.

            Firefox cleared this up slowly as we advocated it late last decade to the point where Chrome could then come out

    • by jopsen ( 885607 ) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:47PM (#55155061) Homepage
      https://servo.org/ [servo.org] Browsers engines are hugely complicated, and forking then will always be hard, very hard.
      Mozilla Firefox is and will remain the best option... with the work being put into servo and features being ported over to firefox we're seeing dramatic performance improvements coming up...

      Extensions breaking is always sad, but there is finally a WebExtensions spec, so breakage can be prevented in the future. The reason extensions are breaking is because they historically have been tied to semi-internal APIs; and have been holding back development... In fact the power previously given to extensions could be considered dangerous.
      • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @03:44PM (#55155381)

        I am fully aware of the reason that extensions are breaking. However, when that means that Firefox has reduced functionality, those reasons mean nothing to me.

        we're seeing dramatic performance improvements coming up...

        That's all well and good -- but (above a certain level, which FF is) performance is less important to me than functionality.

        In fact the power previously given to extensions could be considered dangerous.

        This is easily the single worst excuse for the API change. I don't see how "we're making it worse for your own good" is a point that proponents of these changes would want to be making.

        • by higuita ( 129722 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @05:41PM (#55156095) Homepage

          Actually several add-on where found to leak memory, crash the browser, change settings, spy the user, steal passwords, relay cookies, add fake CA. all those that where found, where blocked, but the current API is dangerous. Mozilla already disabled several features to try to make it safer, but that broke many add-on and the reality is that add-on have access to almost everything in the browser, they can workaround those limits.
          Again, fixing the old add-on interface would require a major rebuild of the add-on, so it is better to simply dump it and write a new API that allow better control and as bonus, allow easier reuse of code between chrome and firefox add-on (so it would help most add-on developers)

          In the last 3 years, each firefox release broke several add-ons. keeping in that road will only make people unhappy. breaking all the add-on once and change to a proper API will allow future firefox be released without breaking the add-ons. Having a proper API, compatibility is easier to maintain and after the initial add-on breakage and unhappy users, slowly the maintained add-on will be ported and easier to keep working for a long time

      • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @04:03PM (#55155539) Journal
        It's fine to make a stable API, but if WebExtension makes GreaseMonkey impossible, then it's a broken API. It doesn't matter how stable that API is, it's broken. The developers who don't understand are geniuses of the apple bar kind.
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The story is stupid anyway. Look at the list of add ons they think they are going to lose:

        DownThemAll - many similar add-ons exist for Chrome
        GreaseMonkey - Chrome version is called Tampermonkey
        NoScript - there is a Chrome version
        UnMHT - SaveAsMHT for Chrome

        WebExtensions are largely compatible with the Chrome API so they should all port over just fine.

        Status-4-Ever and Classic Theme Restorer are the only ones you will lose, but Pale Moon is a reasonable alternative if you really can't stand any of the many C

    • Opera was the best browser around through version 12. It was when they turned into a chrome clone that they turned into shit. Maybe Mozilla could learn a lesson from that...
      • Opera was the best browser around through version 12. It was when they turned into a chrome clone that they turned into shit. Maybe Mozilla could learn a lesson from that...

        What's the lesson? When you have 0.03% market share, and your competitor has 78%, keep doing the same old shit?

    • by jez9999 ( 618189 )

      The Mozilla codebase has proven difficult to maintain - see Pale Moon. So just forking it is problematic.

      What's your point? Pale Moon is maintaining the codebase, and it's one fucking guy.

  • Seamonkey (Score:5, Insightful)

    by that this is not und ( 1026860 ) * on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:26PM (#55154867)

    I run seamonkey so hopefully the Firefox team won't break the base code so badly that Seamonkey can't be built.

    But since they're trying to actively kill the plugin development community, it's possible there just won't be much to install in Seamonkey.

    We need to keep track of who is in charge at Firefox so we can make sure they never get our business again, no matter what project they migrate to like locusts when FF is dead.

    • Mod parent UP. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) <MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com> on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:38PM (#55154989) Homepage
      Track poor managers: Quoted from the parent comment: "We need to keep track of who is in charge at Firefox so we can make sure they never get our business again, no matter what project they migrate to like locusts when FF is dead."
      • Re:Mod parent UP. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Man On Pink Corner ( 1089867 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @03:59PM (#55155503)

        Gotta say, I've heard dumber ideas. It would be very helpful if someone started a site that keeps track of product managers who scramble the UI in popular applications, force-feed operating systems to unwilling users, or redesign websites whose only fault is that people like the way they work now.

        Basically a cross between LinkedIn, FuckedCompany, and Rotten Tomatoes, where users post independent "performance reviews." When an exec moves to a new company, we'd know to disable automatic updates for that company's products.

        If anyone wants to take a serious shot at this problem, they can count on at least one subscriber.

  • by TWX ( 665546 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:26PM (#55154871)

    And probably a plugin that lets me fake my browser's info to sites that ask.

    Did that for FF 31 for a very long time, didn't really ever have functionality problems either. IMHO this current versioning system is complete and utter garbage as it no longer has any meaning. Used to be that the ones-digit meant a milestone. Tenths decimal was a major revision, possibly with additonal features ,but the look-and-feel remained largely the same and the user experience was similar enough that training documentation was generally valid. Hundredths decimal was minor, minor tweaks only, usually bugfixes.

    most of what I see coming out of FF now is hundredths-decimal changes. Sometimes it's tenths. I'm not even sure when it's ones/units anymore. Maybe FF 57 would count. In short though, I don't really care anymore and I only use FF because I used Netscape and then Mozilla and then FF, so if FF gets too dissimilar to what I'm used to or too similar to other offerings then I probably have no reason to bother keeping with it anymore.

    • by Bigbutt ( 65939 )

      Yea, I'm still using 36 at work. Running anything newer kills my company Windows access within a few minutes, locking my account.

      [John]

  • by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:27PM (#55154875)

    I suppose it'll be something else. There are other options and I'm going to start exploring them now. Maybe FF will get their sh*t together in the meantime.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JohnFen ( 1641097 )

      Maybe FF will get their sh*t together in the meantime.

      Don't bet on it.

    • Re:Gone (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @06:13PM (#55156281)

      I've been using Firefox for a long time, since tabbed browsing was a killer new feature. I've seen it convulse with pointless UI changes, copying Chrome visually (and even their ridiculous versioning scheme) but presumably failing to understand *why* Chrome was eating their lunch. I watched as idiotic deals were made with Pocket, integrating more cruft no one wanted directly into the browser.

      Now, Firefox is breaking backwards compatibility. I totally understand *why* they might like to do this, but that really makes no difference to the user. Functionality which was once there is now no more. If they were going to break compatibility anyhow, maybe they should have bitten the bullet and written an entirely new browser like MS did with Edge, so they wouldn't have to make any compromises going forward. Now, instead, we get the worst of both worlds: the historical cruft of an old browser AND broken backwards compatibility.

      At this point, I suspect I'll just jump to Chrome, which is what Firefox ultimately seems aiming towards anyhow. It was mostly simple inertia that was keeping me on Firefox, and now I've been forced into some sort of action. Might as well pick the better browser at this point.

  • Honestly, the primary add-on that kept me in Firefox was TabGroups, which at least for FF57 won't be possible with WebExtensions. They finally came to an agreement on an API in early August that would re-enable extensions like TabGroups to work under WebExtensions, but before that work is completed it won't even be possible.

    So yeah - once they announced the move to WebExtensions from XUL I started looking at Chrome since it was clear that Mozilla didn't really care about their users or why people actuall
  • by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:29PM (#55154885) Homepage

    FireFox stopped allowing key add-ons I use already, because the authors have not created signed versions. So I had to reinstall version 47, where I could at least tell it to accept the fact that they add-on wasn't signed.

    • FireFox stopped allowing key add-ons I use already, because the authors have not created signed versions. So I had to reinstall version 47, where I could at least tell it to accept the fact that they add-on wasn't signed.

      Sounds a little like you are blaming FF for the fact that the extension devs are too lazy to provide their users with a way to trust their addons. Is that right?

      • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @05:06PM (#55155933)

        Sounds a little like you are blaming FF for the fact that the extension devs are too lazy to provide their users with a way to trust their addons. Is that right?

        I think he is blaming FF for not letting the user choose.
        Walled gardens are not a terrible idea. Protecting the user against himself is sometimes necessary. But the thing is : we have enough of this already. A lot of Firefox users use it because they want to keep control, otherwise they would have just use the default option of IE/Edge, Safari or Chrome. They don't use it to let the Mozilla foundation be their nanny.

    • ESR and Developer Edition allow disabling signature checks. But I thought Mozilla already signed all extensions distributed through addons.mozilla.org. Therefore, I can only assume that the extensions were distributed outside addons.mozilla.org. Have you contacted the authors to request a signed version, or if not, to see if you could become the new maintainer? If so, what was the reply?

  • by evolutionary ( 933064 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:30PM (#55154897)
    If Mozilla doesn't come up with a way of keeping the extensions we have grown to love firefox for, I guess I won't be using FireFox. It is strange that Mozilla would not have taken this into account. I've been playing with Vivaldi and I'm a fan of the browser (as well as his music) Have Vivaldi with Umatrix installed, which is like "NoScript" on steroids. So for me Vivaldi is a good alternative to Firefox.
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:32PM (#55154915)

    NoScript

    Because NoScript is migrating [mozilla.org] to WebExtensions API. I believe that Classic Theme Restorer has already proclaimed that they won't. Don't know about the rest.

    • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:42PM (#55155013)

      I believe that Classic Theme Restorer has already proclaimed that they won't.

      Both the CTR folks and Mozilla have stated a number of times that it will not be possible to create an extension that does what CTR does -- so it's toast.

      Which is, in the end, the deciding factor in my not staying with FF after 56. CTR is the only thing that makes the FF UI tolerable.

  • The big issue: Technology companies are usually badly managed. Mozilla Foundation is just one example.

    My list, updated from the list I posted to another story. Every add-on is marked "Legacy" in Firefox version 55.0.3 64-bits.
    1. Adblock Latitude [palemoon.org] For Pale Moon browser only. Blocks display of ads. "Adblock Latitude is a direct fork of Adblock Plus made specifically for the Pale Moon browser."
    2. BetterPrivacy [mozilla.org] Deletes Local Shared Objects, LSOs. LSOs are files placed on your computer by the Adobe Systems Flash plug-in. Use of Adobe Flash allows web sites to track you, permanently even though your browser is configured to delete the files known as "Cookies" after each re-starting of your operating system.
    3. CanvasBiocker [mozilla.org] Prevents websites from using the Javascript <canvas> API to fingerprint them.
    4. Classic Theme Restorer [mozilla.org] Quoting 3 paragraphs:

      "This add-on will stop working when Firefox 57 arrives in November 2017."

      "This add-on will stop working when Firefox 57 arrives in November 2017 and Mozilla drops support for XUL / XPCOM / legacy add-ons. It should still work on Firefox 52 ESR until ESR moves to Firefox 59 ESR in 2018 (~Q2)".

      "There is no 'please port it' or 'please add support for it' this time, because the entire add-on eco system changes and the technology behind this kind of add-on gets dropped without replacement."

    5. Cookies Manager+ [mozilla.org]
    6. Disconnect [mozilla.org]
    7. Facebook Blocker [mozilla.org] Prevents Facebook from following you everywhere there are Facebook "Like" buttons.
    8. Firebug [mozilla.org] "Firebug integrates with Firefox to put a wealth of development tools at your fingertips while you browse. You can edit, debug, and monitor CSS, HTML, and JavaScript live in any web page..."
    9. Ghostery [mozilla.org] DON'T UPDATE. New versions don't allow sufficient user control.
      USE THIS: ghostery-5.4.10-sm+an+fx.xpi Link: Version 5.4.10 [mozilla.org]
      Ghostery sells data it collects. [businessinsider.com] (Business Insider, Jun 18, 2013)
      Ghostery web site [ghostery.com]
    10. HTTPS Everywhere [mozilla.org] Doesn't install in Pale Moon. Encrypts traffic by using HTTPS encryption rather than HTTP wherever web sites accept HTTPS. See How to Protect Your Data After Congress Passed Legislation That Allows Your Internet Search History to Be Sold [vogue.com] (Vogue Magazine, March 29, 2017)
    11. Mozilla Archive Format [mozilla.org] For Firefox and Waterfox only. Saves web pages. For the Pale Moon browser, use MozArchiver.
    12. MozArchiver [palemoon.org] For Pale Moon browser only. Like Mozilla Archive Format that is used with Firefox. Saves web pages.
    13. NoScript [mozilla.org] "The NoScript Firefox extension provides extra protection for Firefox, Seamonkey and other mozilla-based browsers: this free, open source add-on allows
    • by tepples ( 727027 )

      "There is no 'please port it' or 'please add support for it' this time, because the entire add-on eco system changes and the technology behind this kind of add-on gets dropped without replacement."

      Then why didn't the maintainer of Classic Theme Restorer work with Mozilla over a year ago to ensure such a "replacement" when Mozilla announced that it was switching to WebExtensions?

  • by gosand ( 234100 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:33PM (#55154933)

    It's been about a year, and Firefox hasn't given me a single reason to come back.

  • Pale Moon (Score:5, Informative)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:34PM (#55154935)

    I'll probably switch to Pale Moon. Even has the old school UI that I like.

    Current plugins installed:

    NoScript *INDISPENSABLE*
    GreaseMonkey
    Nuke Anything
    DownThemAll
    VideoDownloadHelper

    • You'll still have NoScript after 56. So that's something.

  • by a9db0 ( 31053 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:34PM (#55154943)

    More Chrome or Chromium profiles until some of the add-ins catch up. Without AdBlock Plus, NoScript, and HTTPS Everywhere the web is nearly unusable. Without TabMixPlus and Xmarks, it's a lot less convenient.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This list is ridiculous because Greasemonkey and Lazarus already have Webextension versions (i.e. they already exist for Chrome) and Noscript has one in the works. There's half the list.

    There are certainly a few extensions I'm going to miss but this really did need to happen. Current Firefox performance is awful compared to Chrome. The nightly builds of F57 already have enormous performance gains over the stable build from yanking out huge amounts of legacy code. Webextensions will definitely be less capabl

    • Overblown to you, perhaps. But for some people, like myself, this is not a small problem.

      Current Firefox performance is awful compared to Chrome.

      Perhaps -- I use Chrome as little as I can get away with, so I can't really compare the two.

      However, personally, this doesn't matter even a little. FF performance is acceptable to me, and that there are browsers out there that are faster is only meaningful if they don't suck for me in other ways. Chrome definitely sucks for me in most ways.

      And, going by everything that Mozilla has said about 57, Firefox will too.

  • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:36PM (#55154967)

    But right now, it's looking like I'll be switching to Pale Moon.

    • by Rob Riggs ( 6418 )
      Need something like that to continue to use the f5 VPN plugin. Seems to be what f5 is recommending for their Linux users. They still don't have a reasonable replacement for that POS plugin they distribute.
  • by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:37PM (#55154977)

    How Do You See Your Life After Firefox 52 ESR?

    If my life was significantly different after a new release of any software, I think I'd see my life as re-evaluating whatever life choices made that software such a significant part of my life.

  • by gatzke ( 2977 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:38PM (#55154991) Homepage Journal

    I used Netscape Communicator 4.7 way longer than I should have. Keep the installer bundle and run until she dies or you find a replacement.

    Or find a fork.

  • by shubus ( 1382007 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:46PM (#55155051)
    Yes, Firefox seem to be adept at shooting itself in the foot, but this time Mozilla will lose a very significant segment of their user base: There is a large user base who depend on the Add-On's which make Firefox so useful. The real showstopper for me is AdBlock Plus. Best we can do now is NOT update and keep checking on "Legacy" items in our Add-On's to which vendors have re-coded. Likely most will not within a decent time frame so I'll probably be jumping ship along with the other heavy Add-On users.
  • I have already switched to Pale Moon for Windows. I also did the same for my Mac, even though Pale Moon is still experimental on macOS and I needed to do a long search for its latest version. (If you are interested, it is here [palemoon.org].
  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:50PM (#55155075)
    The developers seem to be taking Firefox in a direction that results in a second-class clone of google's Chrome. If I had wanted to use Chrome, I'd be using Chrome. So it looks like, for me at least, the answer to the question is - I'll be looking for something to replace Firefox if what I need stops working. It's really a simple decision. I use software to help me solve problems, not to create more problems.
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @02:53PM (#55155097)
    I've been putting it off because the APIs aren't completely settled and I don't much relish the thought of doing it twice (my app's a tricky beast thanks to some quirks of Windows pathing among other things). I think that's the biggest problem. Firefox is making all these changes but they haven't really settled them, meanwhile they're rolling them out to production. I'm guessing that since they just don't have the money they used to they haven't got a lot of other options besides what's basically an all inclusive beta program.
  • I'll just keep using Chrome.
  • With the old version of FF entering the warning track - I've decided that I'll take the time to upgrade everything.

    Getting rid of my flip phone and moving to Windows Phone.
    Upgrading from Windows XP to Ubuntu Satanic.
    FF ESR to Opera !!

    there. now I'll be current and fashionable.

    sorry for poking fun at the OP. But this is why companies (like major air traffic control systems) still run on XP. It was as good as it ever got - and too many reasons to stay behind. Adapt or get run over by the wheel progress.

    • It was as good as it ever got

      That's funny. Do you remember viruses, malware, and rootkits. XP was as bad as it ever has been.

  • So basically there'll be a new version that supports only a different sort of browser add-on using a different API, and not that it won't suport ANY add-ons? Wha'ts the big deal? I'll just keep using what I have until such a time that the new-and-shiny version that supports add-ons using the new API has all the add-ons that I want, then I'll worry about switching over. Why is this even a big deal? What am I missing, that someone else is getting all anxious over it?
    • What am I missing, that someone else is getting all anxious over it?

      Honest answer? This is describing me personally, but I suspect I'm not alone: I still use Firefox because it supports functionality that no other browser (aside from earlier versions/forks of Firefox) does.

      I have also been using Firefox from the very beginning, and have a strong emotional connection with it.

      When 57 hits and the functionality that I need goes away, I'll have to use something else. It's an emotional blow, A bit like losing the family pet. So the whole thing makes me feel sad and comes with a

  • It seemed every other release would break most of my add-ons and I'd have to wait for the devs to update their stuff. Now that they will intentionally kill them all, I certainly have no reason to go back.

  • The main reason that I stick with Firefox is the NoScript extension. If that stops being available for Firefox, I will stop using Firefox.

    Javascript is the vector for 99% of the attacks on the Internet. There is no substitute for an extension that shows you what scripts a page wants to run and allows you to selective enable those sources - either temporarily or permanently.

  • So.. guess who won't be updating.

  • Wow oh wow how Firefox the favorite of old slashdot and geeks had mighty fallen.

    Oddly Firefox 10 years ago is what Chrome was today. A new leaner faster browser without the bloat and was an experimental patch of Mozilla. Today Firefox is like IE. Old, insecure, and breaks between releases.

    Firefox can not have sandboxing with %appdata to lowrights catching it up with IE 8 and Chrome 1.0 (2009 era security) so congrats. My last sentence was not meant to be flamebait but I have seen too many infections with Fi

  • by Eravnrekaree ( 467752 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @03:58PM (#55155495)

    I gave up on Firefox a long time ago, after far too many crashes. XUL is pretty badly designed as an extension API. Many had asked firefox devs, nevertheless, about the possibility of maintaining backwards compatability with existing plugins, only requring the new API for new plugins. They said that such major changes were planned to browser internals that the amount of porting it would take for plugin developers just to keep up would mean a major rewrite of plugins anyway.

    XUL and friends is a very low level interface, and is extremely unsafe since it exposes so much of the browser internals. This is a serious security problem. It is infeasible for the browser maintainers to verify the safety of these extensions. WebExtensions will improve security greatly. Really, Ive always thought the way Firefox does extensions is foolish for this reason and just asking for trouble.

    WebExtensions does have an advantage, its compatable with Google Chrome, so if you do port, your extensions become available to many more people.

    yes, it would be nice if there was a way to keep XUL for existing extensions only, and only require Web Extensions for new extensions. But really, XUL is pretty bad from the security standpoint.

  • however after June 2018, it will stop being supported... So what will you do less than a year from now?

    Well, since the release calendar shows ESR 59.0 available on March 5, 2018, I'll probably be using that. Seems a safe bet that by then most extensions will work with it. Is there more to this question, or was this just so you could list some of your favorite extensions? (And how could you not list Adblock Plus?)

  • It's like Firefox before Mozilla started sucking.
  • by Mike Van Pelt ( 32582 ) on Thursday September 07, 2017 @06:00PM (#55156199)

    55.0.2 on Linux still runs my two can-not-live-without plugins -- NoScript and Tree Style Tabs.

    Chrome, alas, has nothing like Tree Style Tabs. (Yeah, there's a plugin that does that hideous separate window thing, but that's hardly an adequate alternative.)

    I'll just have to be sure and disable updates until and unless Tree Style Tabs has a WebExtension version.

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.

Working...