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:
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?
Use less firefox (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Use less firefox (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, if you're on desktop Windows, which is probably pretty common even among Slashdot users, Palemoon is probably the best of the available Mozilla forks for all of the reasons the grandparent post said. I use wget more often than I load a desktop browser on my Linux systems and I bet I'm not alone in that, either. It's not that it doesn't matter, but given the size of the team working on Palemoon, I think they're justified in concentrating on the most common desktop platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox user here. I have never heard of pulseaudio
through I must say that throat based audio tastes intriguing
You might like this [wikipedia.org], then.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Vivaldi is the new Konqueror (Score:3)
Konqueror has had several revamps. In order, they were called Safari, Chrome, and Vivaldi.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that none of those are anything like good old Konq.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I used to use Konq a lot, and share your affection. But, at some point, it stopped working well enough to be usable.
mozilla + rust = servo (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:mozilla + rust = servo (Score:4)
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.
Re:mozilla + rust = servo (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Of course I understand. Perhaps what you don't understand is that the rationale does not make the impact on me as a user any more acceptable.
Re:mozilla + rust = servo (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
WebExtensions supports user scripts so there doesn't seem to be any reason why Greasemonkey couldn't be ported to WebExtensions.
https://developer.mozilla.org/... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the lesson equally shouldn't be "make it into a clone of the competition".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't even begin to imagine trusting any software coming from the 4chan crowd.
Seamonkey (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Mod parent UP. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Keep using 52 ESR? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I'm still using 36 at work. Running anything newer kills my company Windows access within a few minutes, locking my account.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. And Chrome's versioning sucks and is where FF go its versioning.
Gone (Score:4)
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)
Maybe FF will get their sh*t together in the meantime.
Don't bet on it.
Re:Gone (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Moving to Chrome... (Score:2)
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
Already stopped updating (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Already stopped updating (Score:4, Informative)
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 don't check signatures (Score:2)
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?
without my security extensions, play Vivaldi (Score:4, Informative)
Re:without my security extensions, play Vivaldi (Score:5, Interesting)
You're upset that firefox is moving to web extensions, so you abandoned it for a browser that also uses web extensions? And your cited example (umatrix) is also available as a ff57+ compatible web extension.
Re:without my security extensions, play Vivaldi (Score:5, Insightful)
Because old Firefox addons were the only reason left to use Firefox. It is simply not a very good browser anymore.
Just famous or famous and going away? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Just famous or famous and going away? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
My add-on list: All are marked as "Legacy". (Score:5, Informative)
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.
"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."
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]
Re: (Score:2)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
The big issue: Technology companies are usually badly managed. Mozilla Foundation is just one example.
Most companies of any kind are usually badly managed.
Yes, but Mozilla is exceptionally bad. Over the past few years they have seemed to make a very serious and concerted effort to destroy everything that made Firefox popular in the first place. Very few companies have said Fuck You to their customers as openly and deliberately as Mozilla.
Same as today, using Pale Moon (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been about a year, and Firefox hasn't given me a single reason to come back.
Pale Moon (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You'll still have NoScript after 56. So that's something.
Ad Nauseum (Score:2)
Not because the addon is a security risk, but because Moonchild thinks the threat of losing revenue is more important than freedom of choice. Use a browser that respects your freedoms
Not exactly what the post said, but close. I mostly agree with his assessment of the plugin, and I don't see a problem with tweaking a config option to re-enable it. Heck, I wouldn't have a problem recompiling Pale Moon sans the block list if it's that big of a deal. To me, it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
From that post, it sounds to me like the main reason for blocking that add-on is that it was engaging in fraud by generating false clicks on ads.
Also, I note that you can change Pale Moon settings to allow the use of the extension, so it's not like it has been banned.
Chromium (Score:3)
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.
This is way overblown (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Still evaluating (Score:3)
But right now, it's looking like I'll be switching to Pale Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
How do I see my life? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Netscape 4.7 (Score:3)
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.
The Death of FIrefox (Score:3)
'Less than a year' is 'Today' (Score:2)
Software should solve problems, not create them... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, nevermind, this solves all my problems. https://ask.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
I'm in the throes of re-writing my extension (Score:5, Interesting)
Chrome (Score:2)
Plan to upgrade XP as well !! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
I gave up on Firefox years ago... (Score:2)
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.
No NoScript = no Firefox for me (Score:2)
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.
*Checks to see which addons are legacy* (Score:2)
So.. guess who won't be updating.
Anyone under 40 still use it?? (Score:2)
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
XUL should be kept for existing extensions only (Score:4, Informative)
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.
According to the release calendar... (Score:2)
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?)
Carry on as usual using Waterfox (Score:2)
Tree Style Tabs (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the addon. The new API is much less powerful than the old, and some things that plugins can do right now won't be possible after 56. Classic Theme Restorer, for example, is impossible to replicate (according to Mozilla).
Re:The same as before with one exception (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, a slashvertisment would have nice things to say about the new and shiny not "OMG! They are taking away all my favorite add-ons"
Re: (Score:3)
Just look at the previous Slashdot story which had a well-intentioned fellow who was clearly advocating on behalf of Mozilla, talking about how the new Firefox addon model was just as good as the old, all the major addons had already transitioned to it, and if they hadn't, well it's their fault because they had a year's warning that this would happen.
I don't think he had an answer for the folks who complained that the new addon model made some older addons impossible to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Must you be demeaning just because other people have different priorities to you?
This is a joke, I hope?! (Score:3)
Firefox has been increasingly defeatured over the past year or two. And to make matters worse, the FF developers consider that a feature.
The first big one was requiring add-ons to be signed by Mozilla, putatively to protect users (because Mozilla would inspect the code). That was sort of OK-ish at first, because there was a preference that could be set to turn that off, but they did (as promised) get rid of that option in FF 52. The stated intent was that people could be hurt by rogue extensions coming w
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely.
The people whining the loudest are ignoring the fact that ALL THE MOST POPULAR PLUGINS ARE BEING OR AVE ALREADY BEEN PORTED.
uBlock Origin - already ported.
Stylish - has already been Chrome-compatible for years, so port is painless. Allows you to customize ANY webpage, and make it portable across browsers.
NoScript - the oldest and toughest tool of them all, but the creator is making the effort Should be ready by next year [mozilla.org]
Everything else is used by a handful of users.I mean, what the hell else is
Re:Use a good browser... (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people like cross platform browsers because they, you know, use more than one platform.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to use opera because it had tabs when others didn't, handled pop ups better, and it was so much faster than any other browser. Now it's just like chrome and safari for speed and everyone has tabs, pop up, and ad blockers now.
Re: (Score:2)
Opera lost me for being the browser that decided it didn't need to use all the same keyboard shortcuts as any Mosaic-derived (Netscape, Spyglass, IE..) software and for being the only browser for a long, long time that thought it did something worthy of making it non-free commercial software. In my experience, Opera-Classic was also by far the crashiest browser I used over its life. It had fantastic crash recovery, but holy god did it need it.
Opera was also very late in getting addons and customization. It'
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't get the euphemism, don't comment. "Life After" is not how it affects your life, it means how things change after an event. It can be significant (life after cancer), or something simple (life after Twinkies).
While agree with the gist of your comment, this little gem leads me to believe the poster is leaning more towards "life after cancer". Or maybe "life after death". Firefox 57 will disable over 95% of my add-ons many of which I just cannot live without [emphasis added].
Re: (Score:2)
As an old timer grey beard, I can honestly say I have said "I cannot live without" some tech that was great and is now gone without a replacement. I can also confirm, I lived.
I try not to be so hyperbolic about tech I can or cannot live without. "Yeah, it sucks" is my normal reaction these days.
Same here. Of course, there definitely is tech that some people literally cannot live without - pacemakers and dialysis machines come to mind; I'm sure there are many others.
Re: (Score:3)
It wouldn't surprise me if some people's pacemakers are controlled by Firefox extensions. Or IE 6 ActiveX controls.
Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of my children wrote a school report about hyperbole a number of years ago. She started it with the sentence "Hyperbole is the best thing ever."
I was very proud.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
uBlock Origin [mozilla.org] is working fine for me right now on FireFox 57 nightly.
Old versions and sharing outside Pocket (Score:2)
Use Pocket. It's called progress.
I am aware that Pocket allows archiving HTML documents within Pocket's private storage for later reading. But can Pocket export an archived document as it appeared on a given date? Does Pocket let you preserve a document version across multiple machines and share that version with other users who aren't also Pocket members? Or does it instead re-fetch the latest version of the document when you sync your list to a new Firefox installation, and allow sharing only the URL?
Re: (Score:2)
OK.
I'll check back in with FF in 5 years, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Just installed WaterFox, and it imported my profile and all addons automatically, and away I go. Am going to have to retrain NoBlock, but this is great.
Ha, I like how they've changed the "LEGACY" flag to "FULL ADD-ON". From the patch notes -
Re: (Score:3)
DownThemAll is working off of an incorrect premise. (Chunk downloading hasn't been actually faster for a while.)
The reason I use DTA is not the chunk downloading, it's that DTA massively improves the entire process.
But I assume that there are other extensions that also fix the weaknesses of Firefox's download manager (I haven't actually checked), and that's why I don't consider it to be a showstopper issue.
Re: (Score:2)