Slashdot Asks: Have You Switched To Firefox 57? 589
Yesterday, Mozilla launched Firefox 57 for Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, and iOS. It brings massive performance improvements as it incorporates the company's next-generation browser engine called Project Quantum; it also features a visual redesign and support for extensions built using the WebExtension API. Have you used Firefox's new browser? Does it offer enough to make you switch from your tried-and-true browser of choice? We'd love to hear your thoughts.
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
uBlock Origin, Duck Duck Go Plus, Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere, No Coin, Decentraleyes, Smart Referer, Link Cleaner. NoScript coming back Very Soon Now(TM). What else do you need?
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
> What else do you need?
Classic theme restorer.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Below someone complained about the placement of the reload button.
What button do you use on the UI that doesn't have a keyboard shortcut to do the same thing faster?
I took everything out of the toolbar, turned on menus and now you can get to anything from the keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to see the tabs.
A quite a while back they made the theme so that you cannot you see them, but classic theme restorer fixed that.
Also I do not use any special keyboard shortcuts(except new tab and find) and have most moved to impossible key combinations so they are not accidentally triggered. It is really annoying when you try to paste with ctrl-v and bookmarks pop up and such..
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly.
Further:
DownThemAll
PasslFox - the big showstopper for me
NoScript - "but it will be out later today!" only works for so long
Custom Tab Width
(there are others, but those amount to what has already been mentioned)
Until I can avoid productivity loss due to "yet another UI redesign syndrome" that Mozilla seems completely focused on imposing every other release, I will stay on FF 56.02
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
a legit 'video downloader' would be nice to have back, too. and not those shams that use a web server to pull the video from youtube or vimeo, etc either, but one that directly downloads the resolution you want and, if a separate file or stream, the audio quality you want and pieces the bits back together if necessary.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Regarding NoScript - I have tried uMatrix as a replacement and so far I like it better because it is easier to use having a reload button right there in the block popup. The only thing I am missing currently is a password exporter/importer so I can backup my passwords to a camera card. I imagine I will find a password manager that can do that at some point thought, there are plenty of those.
uMatrix (Score:3)
NoScript - "but it will be out later today!" only works for so long
Check out uMatrix [mozilla.org], you might find it far superior to NoScript.
Re: (Score:2)
They also copied Microsoft Edge's hideously ugly tab design. While they had the good sense to not adopt the now discredited flat UI (who thought that was a good idea to begin with?) they still use the boxy UI object paradigm, even though that has been discredited just the same as flat UI.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Mozilla should have worked with noscript dev
They did [hackademix.net].
Re: (Score:3)
I can see them, but I had to change theme from default (light pages, but dark tabs that are black on black), to the "light" theme which looks like I remember except for the square shape and not being as wide as they should be.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you see the tabs? I can't see more than 10 tabs properly until I use one of the plugins for vertical tab bar - either Tab Mix Plus, and Tree Style Tab have been working for last few mutilations by Firefox team - but they don't seem to have made it to 57.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Below someone complained about the placement of the reload button.
What button do you use on the UI that doesn't have a keyboard shortcut to do the same thing faster?
I took everything out of the toolbar, turned on menus and now you can get to anything from the keyboard.
Even so, all he have to is just open customize mode and drag the reload button to wherever he wants it to be, which is what I actually did, because I like it to be on the right side of the address bar
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No Classic Theme Restorer no Firefox 57 for me. Also Colorful Tabs, Six or Not and Calomel SSL Vlidation are very useful, but not sure they work or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Yes (Score:3)
Chatzilla.
http://chatzilla.hacksrus.com/ [hacksrus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch! That's terrible!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The need to not need any of that shit in the first place.
Switching to Brave Browser (Score:5, Interesting)
For three reasons:
1. The core security/privacy functionality is built tightly into the browser by default: HTTPS upgrades, script control, ad blocking, fingerprint protection, etc. No add-ons and depending on third party developers for these vital functions needed.
2. It is the only browser company really doing serious innovation, and that gives it the best chance to actually challenge Google. Plus, how is Mozilla going to challenge Google when it once again depends on Google for almost ALL of its income?
3. Lighting fast and operates in an intuitive UI. I no longer need to mess with all the configurations I had to in Firefox to get it how I wanted it. Brave makes it super easy to toggle things on and off without sorting through an about:config to harden the browser.
https://brave.com/
Re: (Score:3)
What else do you need?
Selenium. Web automation used to be the only area where Firefox was clearly superior. But they broke it with FF version 54, and there appears to be no plans to fix it.
What else? (Score:4, Informative)
GreaseMonkey is so radically changed a lot of scripts are likely to break, and authors may have long disappeared or otherwise won't re-write.
Another user mentioned CTR. Entirely disallowed.
DownThemAll lost a lot of functionality.
And we've just covered major addons. What about the hundreds, even thousands, of smaller ones? Yeah, maybe a lot of them could technically be rewritten, if the developer is still around, and is willing to rewrite it, which would often entail having to work with the Firefox devs to get new functionality added in (assuming it's even allowed functionality, a lot won't be). Since that's such a high burden, let's face it, a lot of those smaller addons are dead and never coming back.
Personally I really like Download Manager Tweak for example, but the feature of it I use will not be allowed in WebExtensions, and the author isn't interested in rewriting one with far less functionality.
Not to mention a lot of users who have upgraded have said quite a large number of advanced configuration options have been removed, because part of Chromification is the inexorable march towards stomping on user choice and dumbing things down, which Firefox has already been doing for some time now.
Bottom line is 57 destroys a lot of plugins and plugin functionality that are gone forever. Given that plugin ability is the primary reason a large part of the userbase is still sticking with FF, there's just no way the benefits are worth this loss. Mozilla thinks being more like Chrome with its hostility towards power users will gain them more users than they'll lose, but what incentive is there for someone to switch away from Chrome to an imitator? My money is still on this ultimately being proven a disastrous decision, because I've seen far more existing users who plan to stick to 56 or the ESR as long as possible then dump FF than users that want 57, and can't fathom a reason to expect any kind of new user influx.
No (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The average user doesn't care about tree style tabs, won't notice a performance difference, doesn't know what memory is and doesn't even know Firefox exists. Or Chrome, for that matter. It's just "the icon on the desktop that opens Facebook",
Isn't performance pretty much the *only* thing the average user will notice? (Well, that, and whether or the browser works on Facebook).
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't performance pretty much the *only* thing the average user will notice?
No. They won't notice it in this case, because the performance margins between browsers are now so small that you can't notice without something timing things for you, or loading a very intensive (very complex dom or javascript or combo) side by side in FF and some other browser. You're not going to notice if it's faster than chrome if you're not even sure what browser you use.
IMO, this is why MS Edge failed to take off. Who cares about its performance, if it breaks on many sites and, when broken, even offers to show that site in IE instead. If a browser kept telling me to use a different browser, then whatever benefit it may have had to begin with, isn't really worth it cause of that rigmarole.
Re: (Score:2)
Discordapp.com is usable in Chromium and unusably slow in Firefox ESR 52.
Re: (Score:2)
"Huh, Facebook must be having issues today", as the user exclaims while having 200 tabs open, using 100% RAM and forcing HDD swapping. This is seriously the mindset of the average user. It is the website's fault for poor local performance from bad programming in local applications and/or poor local system management.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Mozilla should offer an official APT mirror, as Chrome has.
Nope (Score:5, Informative)
Not until I can block everything that leaks out, like I do with NoScript today. I don't know when that might be, but if it isn't soon, I'll have to switch to Pale Moon.
Privacy and script blocking are far more important to me than speed or stability.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
pre-57 NoScript -> 57 uMatrix (it even imports a NoScript backup)
done!
Re:Nope (Score:4)
I switched back to Pale Moon, and so far it's been working very well. Maybe in a year or so I'll try Firefox again, and see if everything is working properly. Like extensions.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Informative)
The NoScript guys say an updated version will be out by the end of the week.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep hearing this mantra about "OMG no NoScript!". Apparently people don't realize that the script blocker in uBlock Origin is *far* superior to NoScript. It was updated for the new Firefox months ago so, it's had plenty of time to brew. You can thank me later: https://github.com/gorhill/uBl... [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I found noscript too tedious to whitelist every site I needed.
Firefox 57 has tracking protection - is that a new thing? I know it used to be on in Private mode but it is on regular windows too now.
yes and yes/no (Score:2)
I have on my work computer but FireFTP no longer works so I'm not so happy about that. Guess I have to start using filezilla..
Other then that I really like it. I'm not sure it'll make me stop using Chrome though as I use Google Play Music and that website has extra features when used in Chrome.
Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Partially (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I still need to recompile for my primary desktop (Ubuntu 16.04).
Well, that seems weird. I use Gentoo and FF 57 was available as a binary.
But on the topic, I only switched from FF to Chromium fairly recently, and there's one simple feature I miss from FF and many other browsers: middle click pasting of the URL anywhere on the page. Having to carefully paste it into the address bar now feels idiotic in the same way that moving windows in Windows requires grabbing by the title bar (apparently, they missed the part of the desktop metaphor where you can move a paper docum
No. And don't want to. (Score:2)
Every recent Firefox update has caused problems with a redesigned GUI. Admittedly up until now I've been able to work around it, but having to work around it is not something I enjoy. If there were a decent alternative I'd use it. Unfortunately, the closest thing I've found to a decent alternative is Konqueror, and that's not great. But if they cripple the bookmarks in the sidebar or make the menubar even more unusable I may be forced to change.
Yes and No (Score:5, Informative)
Yes on systems I don't use that much and No on my primary system. I'm waiting for NoScript to finish its WebAssembly port. On the other systems I'm experimenting with uBlock Origin and uMatrix. (I may end up running all three with NoScript and "Allow Scripts Globally" enabled to just take advantage of its ABE, ClearClick and XSS protections, etc... letting uMatrix and uBO do the rest.)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes because it's in my updates (Score:2)
But I'll see if I can live with it. I'll often choose UI stability, but Firefox's UI has not changed too much. If I don't like the changes, I'll go elsewhere. What else can I do? I don't want to use an out of date browser with security issues.
Nope. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a longtime Firefox user, and I've been annoyed as anyone about the bone-headed UI decisions in past years. But there, at least, you could use add-ons to revert back to a sane user interface, restore the status bar, and the like.
But killing your core, essential feature that makes your product actually worth using over any other browser? Did some cruel time traveller come back in time to ruin Firefox from within or something - I can't see a motivation on the part of those who would do this.
Re: (Score:3)
Their main competitor is funding the development. I don't think they need any time machine to change how that is expected to work out.
Nope, switched to chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
I've stuck with firefox for a long time, but they've finally removed the last few things that were better than chrome, so it's time to give in and switch to the path of least resistance.
Congrats Firefox dev team! You've made it so much like chrome that there's no longer any reason to use it!
Re:Nope, switched to chrome (Score:5, Informative)
give in and switch to the path of least resistance
Which is.. to keep using Firefox? Firefox's WebExtensions API offers more [mozilla.org] than Chrome's does [mozilla.org] (see the browser comparison tables). The claims that Firefox is a "Chrome clone" are silly.
uBlock Origin works better [mozillazine.org] in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill [github.com] is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended [hackademix.net] for NoScript's use (and it will use it when it gets released in a couple of days [hackademix.net]).
Re: (Score:2)
give in and switch to the path of least resistance
Which is.. to keep using Firefox? Firefox's WebExtensions API offers more [mozilla.org] than Chrome's does [mozilla.org] (see the browser comparison tables). The claims that Firefox is a "Chrome clone" are silly.
uBlock Origin works better [mozillazine.org] in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill [github.com] is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended [hackademix.net] for NoScript's use (and it will use it when it gets released in a couple of days [hackademix.net]).
This reminds me of the old Emacs joke posted here. It goes Yeah I love Emacs. It's a great OS it just comes with a shitty text editor.
As a browser webkit beat it a very long time ago regardless of plugins. To me I view Firefox like RealNetworks realplayer or winamp. I heard both are better or were I should say, but who cares this is 2017 the world has moved on. I have not run it many years and neither have my coworkers. My 70 year old father is the only person I am aware of who still uses it.
I do not mean t
Re:Nope, switched to chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Congrats Firefox dev team! You've made it so much like chrome that there's no longer any reason to use it!"
1) Is not a binary blob
2) Is community developed (although sometimes hard to tell)
3) Contains no Googleisms and Google tracking
4) Far less likely to contain back doors
5) Still has more UI control options
6) Promotes browser diversity and choice
Had you said "Chromium" instead of "Chrome", that would have helped with a few of the above, but still not really deal with all of it.
READ FIREFOX'S PRIVACY POLICY! (Score:5, Informative)
Mark Davis, before you make an asinine claim about Firefox like:
you should read Firefox's privacy policy [mozilla.org]!
That way you'd see that it contains stuff like (emphasis added):
and
and
So don't give us this bullshit about Firefox not containing "Googleisms and Google tracking". Firefox very clearly does use at least two Google services, and using these services involves sending data to Google. And this "Google advertising ID" is clearly an example of a "Googleism" that has found its way into Firefox.
Anyone who claims that Firefox cares about its users' privacy is full of bullshit.
Given how Firefox uses services provided by Google, I don't consider it any better than Chrome. In fact, it may be worse, because clearly some people like you have been fooled into wrongly thinking that Firefox is free from "Googleisms and Google tracking".
Unfortunately yes and then back. (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefox updated itself to 57 and made tabs impossible to see again.
They broke that quite a while back, but before 57 you could use "classic theme restorer" to make them visible again. But 57 stopped it from working and there is apparently no fix.
So had to switch back to 56.
And then they also brag about a lie on their website "Set up Firefox your way. " when you cannot even set tab borders anymore.
Re:Unfortunately yes and then back. (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox updated itself to 57 and made tabs impossible to see again.
They broke that quite a while back, but before 57 you could use "classic theme restorer" to make them visible again. But 57 stopped it from working and there is apparently no fix.
So had to switch back to 56.
And then they also brag about a lie on their website "Set up Firefox your way. " when you cannot even set tab borders anymore.
Ever since they inexplicably moved the tab bar away from the pane of the viewer and tried to make it impossible to put it back where it belongs, I've known this to be a lie.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/11/13/customize-firefox-57-with-css/
Your welcome.
Re:Unfortunately yes and then back. (Score:4, Insightful)
So having to tweak a number of CSS files to fix something that the developers broke on purpose in version 29 and still have not fixed to this day. UGH. Really user friendly. No wonder Firefox is losing market share.
If the browser is supposed to be so customizable why is there no UI setting or a direct fix even now more than 3 years after they broke it?
At least with the classic theme restorer you could just install the extension and forget for more than three years that the developers hate the users.
Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's fast, but are you seeing problems with it like I am? As an example here on slashdot's Interactive Discussion system (D2), with FF57 I can no longer click on low modded article headers to expand them.
I have a similar problem on Ars Technica forums.
I can adapt to all the other new changes but if FF57 breaks essential functions I'll be moving to chrome in short order.
No Upgrade Here (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all about the add-ons and customization. They can make it the fastest browser by an order of magnitude but if they break things that I consider vital then I won't upgrade.
Love it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I am probably in the minority here (this place loves to complain) but I love the update. The new GUI is great once I got used to it and set the Dark Theme, plus it is noticeably faster. As for extensions, most of the ones I use are supported, and the ones that didn't i discovered i either didnt need or had functionality replacements available in the browser now that I didn't realize since never looked.
Re: (Score:3)
+1
I'm running the new FF on 3 machines now and it's great so far! I do want NoScript but since so many sites are so horribly broken I've mostly run NoScript permissive. really zero complaints so far. I did wonder what is that weird space between the icons (back/forward/reload/home) and the URL bar. Like if they left justified it then they could show more of the URL.
You can remove that space. Right click on it and select remove from toolbar
Re:Love it! (Score:5, Informative)
Me: "Oh...and get used to DRM. It's baked in and you may not refuse it."
Go to the settings in Firefox -> General and scroll down to "Digital Rights Management Content" section. Uncheck the "Play DRM-controlled content" box and voila! DRM refused.
Probably eventually (Score:2)
Firefox was always my "tried and true browser of choice", but it's been running continuously since before 57 came out so it hasn't updated yet.
When it does I'll lose some extensions I really quite liked, so I'm hanging on to see if they receive updates. I expect the more popular ones will in time, and the more obscure ones I wouldn't be able to replicate by switching browser anyway - so either way I expect to end up on Firefox 57, possibly with some switching to alternate or equivalent extensions in the p
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if Slashdot would change its favicon to use transparent corners instead of white corners, that one tab of mine wont look so funny.
Ahaha, that was bugging me too!
I wasn't actually expecting to like this update. I can live with the UI updates, although I'd characterize them as "not much different". Fortunately, the few add-ons I used upgraded seamlessly, and the browser seems pretty snappy.
Overall, I think it's an improvement, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss the annoyance of those who don't like the UI or lost their favorite add-ons.
Moving to chrome (Score:2)
If I'm going to be forced to deal with the loss of extensions I've been using for years, it'll be with people who didn't break extensions I've been using for years.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Yep!! (Score:3)
I've upgraded to 57 on my primary system and my work system.
KeePass works fine and NoScript should be available soon. The one add-on that I use a lot that does not work with it is Capture & Print. I have a workaround, but this add-on did exactly what I wanted with no extra bells or whistles. I'm crossing my fingers that it will be updated as well.
As for Firefox itself, I don't like that they moved the refresh button to the left of the URL. I preferred it on the right. The GUI is now more inline with the Windows 10 UI and other flat minimal style GUIs which I'm now used to. Pages load fine and I haven't had any problems with it yet.
Re:Yep!! (Score:4, Informative)
I don't like that they moved the refresh button to the left of the URL. I preferred it on the right.
The Refresh button is now outside the URL bar and you can move it via the Customize screen like some of the other UI buttons.
Have been on the ESR channel since 10.0... (Score:2)
Why cahnge now? I am on ESR 52.
But, normally, I got the next ESR as soon as it hit mozilla servers, and manually installed, without waiting for the update system to offer it to me. The last few months of the life of the ESR was hell, mostly because developers check for the browser, and consider the ESR "Old, insecure and Unsupported" (which is NOT TRUE), so websites throw a lot of warnings and render incorrectly...
This time around, though, I'll hold tight until july 2018 to get it when the dust settles. Too
Firefox 57 finally pushed me over to Chrome (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using Firefox "since it all began" (and Mozilla before then, and Netscape when that was the thing - yes, that's a long time ago). My primary reason for sticking with Firefox through thick and thin was the wide selection of addons, in particular those designed to guard privacy and clean up my web experience.
With the move to webextensions there was little left to distinguish between Firefox and Chrome. My main reservation wrt. Chrome was presumable lack of ability to programmatically control cookie access list (i.e. allow/session only/deny sites ability to set cookies from an extension). Authors of Firefox cookie manager extensions (such as Cookie Controller) stated that doing so is not possible in Chrome.
Finally, I figured I'd give it a try. Less than 20 minutes of searching helped me find an API to control cookies from a Webextension. I wrote my own (and put it up in Chrome "web store" - "Cookie ACL manager"), and we were in business shortly.
While doing that, found a few bugs (not critical but def. needing some attention) in cookie and site data handling. Reported these through Chrome bug reporting site and was positively surprised by developers actually reading and responding (and, hopefully, fixing them soon). By comparison, never got Firefox developers to fix anything.
So - I am sorry Firefox, it's been a good 20 years, but now we must part. Farewell.
Re:Firefox 57 finally pushed me over to Chrome (Score:4, Insightful)
While you are trolling, I will respond because I think it makes a good point :)
I suspect that Firefox may support the same API (thought existing addon authors adamantly state it does not). However, if I am to use the same API, I'd rather use it in a faster, more efficient and (due to its popularity) better supported browser. That is to say - whether Firefox supports such an API is irrelevant at this point.
Firefox had a distinctive advantage of a unique flexible design and API access to all aspects of browser implementation. They chose to remove this advantage in favor of standardization. Now there is no longer anything about Firefox that makes it a better choice.
Re: Firefox 57 finally pushed me over to Chrome (Score:3)
Very aware, so much so that I spent several days auditing Chrome by watching traffic in Wireshark, to see if it sends anything anywhere I do not expect it to.
I found that with appropriate basic configuration Chrome does not "phone home" and, generally, does not expose any more information than Firefox did (possibly less, actually)
Ironically, google.com cookies and local data are permanently blocked in my Chrome copy ;)
Yep (Score:2)
Yes! (Score:2)
Loaded question (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently the answer according to Slashdot is Mozilla can suck balls no matter what they do. They fix the slowness and now everyone bitches about broken extensions. I get it, everyone is butt hurt about Firefox 3.5 not lasting one hundred millions years. Seriously, FF 57 is faster, extensions, no wait let me correct that, NoScript is coming and it'll be even faster. It doesn't use the abomination that is XUL. But no, the massive tectonic changes that everyone wanted back in 3.5 days, those *finally* g
Re:Loaded question (Score:5, Informative)
The Luddites had very good reasons to hate the industrialization that threatened their culture, economy, and way of life. Their opponents were brutal and made inferior textiles with a high human cost. The Luddite rebellion failed, and the horrible treatment of textile workers has continued pretty much unabated to this very day. It's a silly thing to trot out when "progress" has more steps back than forward.
Firefox 57 fixed problems I didn't have and took away things I've used for years. 56 worked well on everything from my i7 gaming rig to my ancient Pentium laptop that shipped with vista and 2 gigs of ram. I kind of wonder if this "57 is fast" stuff is a bunch of benchmark fluff, but it could be I'm just insensitive to browser latency. Stability, now that has been a very real problem in the past. Stability was also flawless on all my machines in 56.
If 57 is delightful for you, cool. Me, I lost extensions that've been part of my daily life, I gained nothing, and I think that's a perfectly damn fine reason to be annoyed with it. Not to mention all the extension developers who got shafted. Feh, Luddite indeed.
In Firefox's favor though, Fakespot on Chrome costs 2 dollars a month for a glorified link opener. What the frak?
Re:Loaded question (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for responding to that idiot better than I could have. Most Firefox users didn't go in that direction for raw speed and a new GUI every frickin' week. In the early days (and yes, I was an early adopter) it worked reasonably well and featured a consistently-increasing number of add-ons that let you turn it into a browser that did exactly what you wanted. At the time, it was really the only choice for people who wanted to customize their web-surfing experience.
Fast forward to now...The only thing that has kept me from dumping Firefox completely (I use Pale Moon mostly, but there's some sites it just won't render properly) is Classic Theme Restorer. Now, apparently, the developer is being given the cold shoulder by Firefox.
So screw 'em. I'll keep my current version for those rare occasions when I need it and use an alternative for everything else. Mostly that will continue to be Pale Moon. When I really care about privacy/security, I don't bother with "Private Browsing" on either of them. I just use Epic.
Firefox Edge edition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I need an account to use Pocket?
The account is used to synchronize the links stored in Pocket on one of your devices that runs Pocket with the links stored in Pocket on another of your devices that runs Pocket. How would you recommend that this be accomplished without an account?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and No (Score:2)
Yes, then I found out they broke the QuickJava extension, which is the only reason I use FF. So now I'm going back.
Better managed alternatives (Score:5, Informative)
Waterfox portable [waterfoxproject.org].
Pale Moon 64-bits [palemoon.org]
Pale Moon 32-bits [palemoon.org]
Pale Moon Portable [palemoon.org]
Ghostery does not install in Pale Moon, so I use the Disconnect [mozilla.org] extension. Disconnect's interface is not as well-designed.
Firefox is my browser of choice. (Score:3)
Firefox is, and has been, my browser of choice.
Need NoScript (Score:2)
Waiting for a NoScript update, then I’ll jump.
No discernible difference that matters (Score:2, Informative)
First World Problem. Took a few seconds so had to have been pre-downloaded. Differences are not worth the energy to worry about. Meh? Don't care.
perversely impressive (Score:5, Insightful)
browsers are now basically scaffolds for my extensions. 57 borked them all. every single one - it was actually impressive in a perverse way. i rolled back to 56.
- js.
I Tried it (Score:3)
I'm trying FF57 for 64-bit Linux.
Facebook brings it to a screeching halt.
Yes I updated (Score:2)
The for me important plug-ins also work, Tree Style tabs, uBlock origine, the video downloadhelper, Ghostery and the JavaScrypt toggle.
Albeit Tree Style tabs still need a tweak to hide the old tabs, it should be done in a couple of days.
No, I have not switched (Score:2)
While I do use Chromium on occasion, Firefox has been my "tried and true browser of choice" since it was called Phoenix. I was initially quite annoyed about the deprecation of legacy XUL add-ons, however throughout the FF57 beta period, WebExtensions have popped up to meet just about all of my needs, and the performance improvements have been outstanding. Firefox continues to be the de-facto standard browser for the web. It is an indispensable tool, and a wonderful model for the entire software industry.
Only on the 2008 15" MacBook Pro... (Score:2)
... It has its original 2 GB of RAM, HDD, etc. except Mac OS X El Capitan v10.11.6. Very slow and old especially with Firefox. V57 was much faster I could tell!
I'm warming up to FireFox again (Score:3)
I had used only Chrome for quite a few years. Firefox was just too slow. It struggled with simple tasks like scrolling down the page.
But in the last couple of months, two important things happened:
- Firefox started working on performance, bringing it in line with Chrome's performance
- Firefox added the ability to block auto-play video. *That* won me over.
I'm not totally on Firefox yet, but I'm more and more a fan.
Yes (Score:3)
I have been waiting for it and returned to Firefox with 57. It's nice and speedy now and I prefer it over the other for ideological reasons. Replaced Lastpass with Bitwarden in the process and awaiting NoScript this week.
Apparently I'm one of the very few who doesn't give a damn how tabs look like, where they are, how menus are placed/organised/looks, etc etc. I'm a "heavy duty" browser user but can still work with any modern browser, such as any FF UI we've seen, Vivaldi, chrome, opera without feeling "workflow impaired". I just get to know them and make them work for me. I guess I'm flexible.
No (Score:4, Insightful)
Five of the five addons I have installed are marked as Legacy so will not work :( One of them is NoScript, which I know is coming in the next few days, but it's actually the one I care about the least.
The others are:
FireGestures (for gesture controlling - amazing how you get used to this & how much difference it makes to your browsing experience). No update news but from comments it seems it's unlikely to be updated to its former glory due to deficiencies in the new API. There are partial replacements so not too bad.
GreaseMonkey (for modifying webpages on the fly). I mostly use this for minor work enhancements so not critical but it's a really useful tool. I think it's easily replaceable though.
QuickJava. A super useful tool that simply puts icons in the status bar allowing you to toggle on/off JS, WebGL, RTC, Images, CSS, Proxy, etc. Staggeringly handy.
Classic Theme Restorer. I will miss the UI flexibility the most.
I have maybe 12 other addons that I mostly leave disabled; only two of these have been updated, the others are legacy.
I am really torn; I want to stay up-to-date with Firefox but the reason I use Firefox is that I've customised it to my preferences. If I lose that ability and it's not replaced with something better - the speed is nice but I don't really care about it - then why would I update?
Re: (Score:2)
"I'll just load up firefox to che..."
"No! I don't use that. I use that blue moon one"
My only complaint with Pale Moon atm is with regards to Youtube and live streams: having to kill Asynch MSE for WebM MSE gets annoying fast, and seems to not always work either.
Re: (Score:2)
Who doesn't use a keyboard short cut for reload?
First think I did was take every button out of the toolbar and turn on the old menus.
Re: (Score:2)
Who doesn't use a keyboard short cut for reload?
*raises hand*
Re: (Score:2)
I use shift-reload all the time, to get firefox to ignore it's cache for the reload and get me a completely fresh copy. I suppose there's a keyboard shortcut for it, but I've never learned what it is.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I ask this question every time and I will ask it again. Produce some packet captures of Chrome exhibiting this behavior. I'm waiting.
Breaking Things since 2011 (Score:5, Interesting)
The've been doing this since 2011. Mozilla has been quite content to shed any technical merit they had for almost any reason at all. It all started when they saw Chrome beginning to become successful, and immediately decided to emulate Google's development environment. They adopted Google's rapid release and versioning method on a project that was neither technically nor culturally suited for it. They broke extensions by the truck load with that little gem, and instead of slowing down and letting the extension system catch up, their solution was to write a script that automatically scanned their extensions and just disabled the ones which hadn't caught up yet. Then they went all hell bent on adopting major UI changes that were demonstrably unpopular by the majority of its user base. And if alienating the extensions authors wasn't enough, many of the UI changes destroyed themes on back-to-back-to-back releases. It reminds me of one of my country's more famous prime ministers who, when he realized he'd alienated half my country, proceeded to give them the finger from his seat on a train. That's Mozilla. They alienate users, and then the ones who have stayed loyal they give the finger to.
All of this was in an attempt at emulating Chrome's burgeoning success. The problem is, they never figured out... you simply cannot surpass someone else by playing copycat on their methods. All they did was alienate their existing user base in favour of a product that could never be quite as good at being Chrome as Chrome was.
Mozilla had a great browser, and a great community. Someone spooked at Chrome's early success and decided that change for change's sake was necessary, and they have resisted every indication that they have made a mistake.
I recommend PaleMoon for a fantastic experience that is the best of what Firefox was in combination with innovation that makes sense and which takes into account its user base. It was originally a patch on an earlier FF ESR, they have since essentially departed from Firefox, though they still borrow some bits when it makes sense to do so. It's what Firefox should have been if they hadn't taken the detour into crazy six years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
This behaviour seems a little faster than the previous versions.
Re: (Score:2)