Slashdot Mirror

user.js what? Is that how you give tech advice? Just tell people to go to settings, click notifications, and click disable new notification requests.

I mean shit user.js? Why not ask people to download the source and patch out the code and recompile while you're at it? Or use a hex editor to patch the binary exe like the good old days of bypassing DRM?

These settings actually disable the push and web notifications altogether rather than just stopping the confirmation prompts.

As for using "user.js" file... This is pretty common knowledge, but ... Firefox stores its per-user configuration settings ("about:config" and the various Option settings) for that user's Firefox profile folder in a text-type file named "prefs.js" (see prefs.js) and these names/values are updated whenever Firefox exits. These settings can be overridden and permanently set by placing similar entries in a text-type file in that folder named, "user.js" (see: user.js. Any names/values specified in this file will get reset for that user every time Firefox starts -- and many, many users utilize this to ensure they or Firefox don't re-enable something.

As for your commentary about downloading, patching and recompiling the source or patching the executable with a hex editor (which I have actually done before) -- stop being a dick. :-)

user.js what? Is that how you give tech advice? Just tell people to go to settings, click notifications, and click disable new notification requests.

I mean shit user.js? Why not ask people to download the source and patch out the code and recompile while you're at it? Or use a hex editor to patch the binary exe like the good old days of bypassing DRM?

These settings actually disable the push and web notifications altogether rather than just stopping the confirmation prompts.

As for using "user.js" file... This is pretty common knowledge, but ... Firefox stores its per-user configuration settings ("about:config" and the various Option settings) for that user's Firefox profile folder in a text-type file named "prefs.js" (see prefs.js) and these names/values are updated whenever Firefox exits. These settings can be overridden and permanently set by placing similar entries in a text-type file in that folder named, "user.js" (see: user.js. Any names/values specified in this file will get reset for that user every time Firefox starts -- and many, many users utilize this to ensure they or Firefox don't re-enable something.

As for your commentary about downloading, patching and recompiling the source or patching the executable with a hex editor (which I have actually done before) -- stop being a dick. :-)

Do you remember when "web browser chrome" used to refer to different visual themes for user interface the that you could write yourself and choose between in the Mozilla web browser?
There were quite a few of them to choose between on a section on Mozillazine called The ChromeZone. The barrier to entry was quite low, all themes as images and as text files written in the XML-based language XUL. I had contributed a web browser UI theme to The Chrome Zone myself.

But the full-fledged Mozilla browser was known to be stupidly slow and got abandoned for the slimmed-down Firefox.
Firefox used native widgets, that were consistent with other programs on the platform that it ran on. On Linux (or other OS with X) the native widgets were GTK+ widgets, which had its own theming system -- also user-made in text format, with low barrier to entry and with many to choose from.

... and later Google snatched both the names "Chrome" and Chrome Zone for themselves.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Bloc...

It's not the first nor the last. You can see the list here for Firefox: https://blocked.cdn.mozilla.ne...

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Bloc...

Yes but this is rarely updated, and only for the really awful addons that coinmine or scrape user data in the background without permission or are virus-like.

There's an addon blacklist file. Just like there's a URL blacklist file. Former: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Bloc... Latter: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Urlc...

There's an addon blacklist file. Just like there's a URL blacklist file. Former: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Bloc... Latter: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Urlc...

That's fair about adblock/etc - except I can get those on any platform.

But on which platform do they work best? It's worth reading what the author of uBlock Origin (gorhill) has to say about it.

The source code [postbox-inc.com] appears to be available for older versions, but I'm unclear if they are contributing back to the master repository anymore, or just a fork.

Well, the reason I don't us it is, according to this:

Postbox appears to be using a fork of version 9 of the Gecko layout engine used in both Firefox and Thunderbird, and have no plan to modernize it anytime soon. Having a stable version of Gecko makes it much easier to implement features such as vertical view with double rows like Outlook does. On the other hand it means at least 4 years worth of security fixes have not been added.

Keyboard shortcuts for handy things, even obscure ones. CTRL+U for "view message source" for example. This makes certain techie tasks way easier. To send a full message source to Spamcop's web interface, I just hold CTRL and go U, A, C, W, release CTRL, then ALT+TAB to Firefox and CTRL+V in the text box.

Since Thunderbird is based on Firefox's runtime, things like CTRL+[scroll wheel] zoom the contents of the message body as expected. If some asshole thinks it's funny to send 7-point light grey text (every unsubscribe line in every marketing email ever) you've got an easy way around that. You can also View - Message Body As - Plain Text, or ALT+V, B, P.

Thunderbird contacts can do mailing lists. Using the Mail Merge extension as described here you can send letters to those mailing lists using auto-filled variables; no need for third-party programs to send emails to a small mailing list.

I'd say more things but I have work to do. Needless to say, there's a lot of goodies in Thunderbird once you start digging. I hate Outlook so very much because I'm spoiled by Thunderbird.

Gone are pretty much all the extensions that separated Firefox from Chrome.

The developers of NoScript and uBlock Origin say Firefox's WebExtensions API is the best of any browser. The API isn't standing still. New features are getting added. Firefox's implementation of WebExtensions does more than Chrome's does.

ad blockers for Chrome don't work the same way as on Firefox, specifically because of the API differences

Yes, Firefox's WebExtensions API extends beyond Chrome's in various ways including this one. uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (NoScript will be released in a couple of days).

give in and switch to the path of least resistance

Which is.. to keep using Firefox? Firefox's WebExtensions API offers more than Chrome's does (see the browser comparison tables). The claims that Firefox is a "Chrome clone" are silly.

uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (and it will use it when it gets released in a couple of days).

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 this as offensive to the remaining Firefox users. I really don't. I was once a fanboy since the days of Phoenix. I realistically do not see it mattering anymore nor ever coming back just like the legacy products listed above. ... ok Emacs is still going strong with the older IT nerd crowd and is not going away:-).

give in and switch to the path of least resistance

Which is.. to keep using Firefox? Firefox's WebExtensions API offers more than Chrome's does (see the browser comparison tables). The claims that Firefox is a "Chrome clone" are silly.

uBlock Origin works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin). Firefox's webRequest API was extended for NoScript's use (and it will use it when it gets released in a couple of days).

why shouldn't I just switch to Chrome anyhow?

Because Mozilla's WebExtensions API already offers more than Chrome's does. uBlock Origin, for example, works better in Firefox 57 than possible in Chrome (gorhill is the developer of uBlock Origin).

You can configure this setting in Firefox. It doesn't look like Chrome has a similar configuration.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Abou...
network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server - default = 6

Try setting this to 1.

Source:
https://support.mozilla.org/t5...

Enduring mystery why there is almost no desktop alternative to Outlook or Apple Mail. I guess it's hard to monetize? Sure Gmail shows ads, but would peeps freak out if Thunderbird did that? Eudora did it .

When Mozilla made TB a volunteer project without paid developers in 2012*, in order to concentrate on the OS product, it was a sad day. TB and Seamonkey are still releasing, but I don't think they are addressing longstanding architectural choices such as the data files blobbing in the attachments like Outlook does. Just keeping up with the Mozilla core engine is tough enough. The Seamonkey "team" (more like a a couple of people) did get Windows builds and releases working again last autumn. Thanks to them! The messenger/calendar codebase benefits form having more than one end product: TB and SM.

* Then at the end of 2015 Mozilla said TB would have to find a new home at some point and decouple from the Firefox codebase. This could be quite dire, but TB has millions of users, and some smart people guiding it, and another do-gooder foundation on the horizon. http://forums.mozillazine.org/...

Sadly, nope.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/...

Cookie Controller seems to be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too complex for what it provides, yet if it doesn't allow me finer control over the setting of cookies in the first place I'm not sure it's worth it.

I guess Mozilla is in cahoots with advertisers these days. YOU MUST ACCEPT COOKIES. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

Even the existing not-very-smart-bar feature in most browsers keeps wanting to google "http://mytestwebserver.local" or "192.168.1.254" instead of doing what I obviously want.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyw...

HTH, HAND.

Not everything is about "SJWs"

Not everything. But Mozilla getting worse — is.

If adherence to Social Justice values becomes one of the deciding criteria, you begin to disqualify some otherwise best people. I would testify in front of any investigating committee, that Firefox started getting worse, when Brendan Eich was ousted — an achievement of SJWs and nobody else's. Memory consumption became worse and one of my FreeBSD computers lost the ability to play web-videos — because it runs a 32-bit firefox. Searching online confirms, this is neither an isolated case nor is it OS-specific.

On other fronts, now Mozilla wants to drop Thunderbird...

Having been involved with Mozilla for many years, I don't blame all of their problems on the new, politically-correct, management. Yet, some things did get worse without appreciable improvements to compensate elsewhere.

Some things really are about SJWs — and none of them good. If you count yourself among them, you should consider improving this world by killing yourself. (Erynk, guvf ynfg bar jnf n gebyy...)

You now have to download, trust & configure a third-party plugin to block javascript.

No, no plugin needed at all. You just need to:

1. go to about:config (read more about about:config here: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Abou...)
2. toggle the option javascript.enabled to false

And no, disabling javascript does not miraculously protect the user from almost all exploits. Some time ago, firefox has used a fonts library. Simply loading a font then could infect you. They've changed it since.

My thought was that for a single user (ie, minus any of the group/shared functionality of Exchange or other groupware concepts) IMAP wouldn't have been a terrible way to interact with remote data storage.

It's been done. It was done long ago. It did not blunt the momentum of other solutions.
Here's the docs for Pine's remote address book, as one implementation: https://www.washington.edu/pin...
Here's a huge list of ways to share/copy/sync/etc address books to/from Thunderbird: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Shar...
The ones that won for address books are LDAP and CardDAV.
Calendaring is quite different and separate from email, except in sending/receiving invites, so it's always a separate system. The invite stuff is solved with CalDAV and/or iCalendar.

A lesser known feature in FireFox : you can add/edit a userContent.css, which acts like a global CSS for all web pages. See here for more info.

S/MIME is pre-installed on most mail clients. It works on iPhones, Thunderbird, Outlook (the one with a client, not the web version)... I used to use it with kmail back in the day, more than ten years ago. It's been a standard feature that long, and the DOD's been using it forever.

The only problem is that S/MIME, like PGP, GPG, and the ilk, doesn't work on webmail for reasons contested on other threads in this discussion. Gmail is primarily webmail.

Frankly, the moderator was right. Your two lines don't add anything to the discussion, and delivering the mail to 100+ recipients would just waste everyone's time. You just don't go into a developer mailing list with the same attitude as you go to a forum thread. At least tell them why you disagree with the change.

Go try the MozillaZine forums or something.

I'm surprised your idiocy got moderated to +5.

Here! Here! I only upgraded because of the security "updates." I'm sick of the adware bloatware and shovelware for its 'monetized partners' that Mozilla foundation keeps trying to shovel down our throats, their Pocket and Adobe deals. They call themselves a non-profit, they act like a corporation and have millions, and want more. We are not the customers. We are the product they are selling! http://www.computerworld.com/a... http://forums.mozillazine.org/...

I also assumed Classic Theme Restorer would probably be affected (even though CTR itself is an extension rather than a theme). But according to the developer:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/...

"Removing support for complete themes should not have any effect on CTR."

Well, until Mozilla removes UserChrome.css because telemetry says it isn't used:

#bookmarksMenuPopup>#menu_pocket,
#bookmarksMenuPopup>#menu_pocketSeparator{display:none!important}

I asked the author of Classic Theme Restorer if it would stop working, he said it would have no effect on CTR.

Two AC's already mentioned GPG/PGP and google's End-to-end project, but there is a more standardized and widely available option: S/MIME signatures.

S/MIME sigs have (at least) one "problem"... they require a centralized certificate authority. However, you can get a personal S/MIME cert for free from several of the big CA's: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gett...

That said, there are two HUGE problems with expecting this to solve the phishing problem:

1. Bad email doesn't look bad. You end up with:
a) email with a valid cryptographic signature (yay, that was definitely my boss)
b) email with an invalid signature (see item #2)
c) email without a signature (traditional email). You can't raise a big red flag on every one of these or 99% of your messages will have big red flags.

2. Messages frequently get tampered with in transit, causing the signatures to fail.
The primary purpose of cryptographic signatures is to prove that the content was not tampered with and is what that person wrote.
If the content changes, the email client MUST raise a big red flag. This shows up as MUCH WORSE than something without any sig at all.
This would be fine, except that lots of things jack with email along the way (spam filters, virus filters, attachment filters, 3rd party servers, exchange sucks, etc). Normally, those won't change things TOO significantly, but just one extra space character or newline between parts and the sig fails. It's very fragile, and since the message isn't some binary blob, servers take apart and re-assemble the message many times along its way.

The worst part about #2 is that it makes unsigned messages more reliable (in a way). I sign most of my messages, but if I'm sending something important, especially with attachments and to multiple people, I'm now prone to skip signing just to avoid having several important people get very worries about the big red exclamation point on a message saying my message may have been forged or tampered with.

IMO, S/MIME *should* be the solution (with GPG/PGP as a close second.... others will have those reversed), but we're better off moving to something else if we want that feature, especially now that webmail is so prevalent (ex. gmail)... webmail can't do S/MIME without some client side tie in, which makes it no longer "webmail".

...more useless bloat that I'm going to have to disable when practical things like being able to view text files in the browser is STILL broken after years of waiting.

Seriously?! Your install of Firefox won't render plain text files?? I've never had that problem and I definitely don't recall have to change any configs.

It sounds like either it's a Windows thing; you accidentally set the filetype handling behaviour; or you have installed a downloader extension that changed things. Take a look at your mimetypes. It's easily fixable.

"The memory leak? It simply doesnt exist." -- Part of the parent comment.

If I have a lot of windows and tabs open in Firefox, the memory usage begins increasing even when I am doing nothing with Firefox. Eventually there is a crash. With the most recent versions of Firefox, the crash seldom starts the crash reporter. Instead of reporting the crash, the screen goes black. So, there are more crashes than are being reported.

I posted this +5 comment 9 years ago: Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.

In 2006, there were only 12 excuses for the instability. Now there are many more.

Mozilla Foundation
Top 21 Excuses
for Not Fixing the
Firefox Memory and CPU Hogging bugs

These are actual excuses given at one time or another. They are not all the excuses, just the top 21.

1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build. [The same memory and CPU hogging bug has been reported many, many times over a period of TEN years.]

2) Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important. [The bug eventually causes Firefox to take 100% of the power of one CPU, and makes Windows 7 unusable, even after Firefox is killed. The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox, those who do a lot of research online.]

3) Yes, this bug exists, but it is not a common occurrence. [Numerous users have reported the bug. See the links.]

4) Works for me. [The bug is complicated to reproduce, so the developers did a simplified test, which didnt show the bug.]

5) No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report, they would know that there is often no TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated. TalkBack cannot generate a report if the bug takes 100% of the CPU time.]

6) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. [They didnt bother to reproduce the bug using the detailed information provided.]

7) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. [The other bugs arent specified.]

8) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the same use does not crash any version of Chrome or Opera.]

9) I dont like the way you worded your bug report. [So, he didnt read it or think about it.]

10) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself. [Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem, and we may fix it.]

11) Many bugs that are filed arent important to 99.99% of the users.

12) If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be trolling. [They say this even though Firefox and Mozilla instability is beginning to be reported in media such as Information Week. See the links to magazine articles in this Slashdot comment: Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.]

13) Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]

14) Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile. [The same bug has been reported many times over a period of five years. One of the reports discusses an extensive test in both Linux and Windows that used a completely clean installation of the operating systems, not just a clean profile. The CPU hogging bug and instability was just as severe.]

15) If you are technically knowledgeable, you can spend several hours (or days) trying to discover the problem: Standard diagnostic - Firefox

Pale Moon 64-bit is Firefox without the "self-induced failure" mentioned in the parent comment.

Pale Moon with Adblock Latitude is AdBlock Plus without the corruption mentioned in this story: Google, Amazon 'n' pals fork out for AdBlock Plus 'unblock' -- report

It is not necessary to use the Classic Theme Restorer add-on in Pale Moon because Pale Moon didn't change the user interface.

Firefox is becoming less and less stable. When many windows and tabs are open, the memory usage begins increasing even when there is no activity, and then Firefox crashes. Now, in recent versions, Firefox crashes but often doesn't report the crashes. The screen just becomes black. The crash reports aren't reliable, they show far fewer crashes than actually occurred.

Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to change the search configuration of Firefox, without notifying users. Most users of Firefox don't now how to change it back. Instead, they may change to another browser. See this Slashdot story: Firefox Signs Five-Year Deal With Yahoo, Drops Google as Default Search Engine. But "Yahoo search" is just Microsoft Bing search. It's mind-bending: Microsoft is paying Yahoo to corrupt Firefox.

The newest version of Firefox took the "Duplicate Tab" choice out of the right-click menu of each tab, and put that choice in the right-click menu of the displayed page. Often, however, right-clicking on the page itself brings up a different menu because of the way the page is coded underneath the mouse pointer. So it may be necessary to try right-clicking on several areas of the page to find the Duplicate Tab menu choice.

In Pale Moon, the right-click menu contains the "Duplicate Tab" choice in both the tab and the displayed page.

Apparently Mozilla Foundation is trying to discourage the use of the Thunderbird email client. The newest version of Thunderbird, 31.4.0, has the Save-As bug. All file saves are Save As, and suggest a different file name than the name with which the email was saved before. The Save-As bug was reported in September 2014, and has not been fixed in more than 4 months. Is it possible that the bug is deliberate?

I haven't found the bug report of the Save-As bug in Thunderbird. Here is the report for SeaMonkey Composer, the same software that Thunderbird uses: When I click save, the button does what Save As should do, even if I previously saved said file.

Other obvious bugs were recently introduced into Thunderbird. For example, the fields for email addresses are now much more difficult to read.

Pale Moon has been removing some of the issues in their FossaMail version of Thunderbird. I haven't tested it to see if the Save-As bug is fixed.

The underlying problem is that Mozilla Foundation needs better management. At present, Mozilla Foundation management is sometimes excellent and sometimes very unreliable.

It feels "less quirky" than Seamonkey, and some of the Extensions that I have used for years ( Like Tree Style Tab) work with PaleMoon while they don't in Seamonkey.

You can get a few of the problematic extensions to install and work on SeaMonkey using the Firefox & Thunderbird Add-on Converter for SeaMonkey. Not all of the Firefox and Thunderbird extensions can be converted, but it certainly expands the frontiers.

"Warning: You need administrator privileges to install Adblock plus" FROM http://forums.mozillazine.org/... so what's that YOU said about admin priveleges & hosts?

By the way: Hosts are PROTECTED by those priveleges + ACL & WFP against exploitation: Thus, It's a GOOD THING (so they aren't easily "bushwhacked").

Your sysadmin's a fool *IF* he thinks adblock are even a FRACTION as powerful or useful as hosts (which you PROVE by being unable to prove my points wrong here in favor of hosts giving users more speed, security, & reliability over "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

You also failed on hosts being able to whitelist sites (by not entering a blocking entry for them in hosts, you have whitelisted them - period).

YOU FAIL & YOU KNOW IT.

APK

P.S.=> Get back to us when you can show us adblock does more than hosts -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which will be on the "12th of never", lmao ("that ain't happenin'", ever)... apk

"Warning: You need administrator privileges to install Adblock plus" http://forums.mozillazine.org/...

See subject-line: YOU FAIL, stupid... & that, IS that.

APK

P.S.=> Your sysadmins a dumb fuck then if he can't write a batch or script to migrate hosts across a LAN/WAN to network endpoints like desktops then... Hey: YOU'RE BOTH WEAK & STUPID!

He's just like you then since adblock's crippled by default & sold out to advertisers to NOT DO ITS JOB fully, and adblock can't touch hosts for both efficiency &/or abilities http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you can NEVER, *ever*, get the best of those points proving them wrong or have your weak results not shown that? Score = APK/Hosts 15++, & ACTroll/AlmostALLAdsBlocked = 0 (fact) ... apk

"Warning: You need administrator privileges to install Adblock plus" from http://forums.mozillazine.org/...

* So, WHAT was that you were saying about "admin priveleges" stupid?

APK

P.S.=> Second time = Hosts can be setup NETWORK WIDE to every pc desktop node easily by admins (by logon scripts &/or scheduled tasks-chronjob run scripts) since hosts protect globally -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

So how do you LIKE "EATING YOUR WORDS" chump?

About as much as you did on 'whitelisting being impossible in hosts' too (BIG FAIL on your part)? Absolutely -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... you STUPID little shit... lol!

... apk

"Warning: You need administrator privileges to install Adblock plus" from http://forums.mozillazine.org/...

* So, WHAT was that you were saying about "admin priveleges" stupid?

APK

P.S.=> Hosts can be setup NETWORK WIDE to every pc desktop node easily by admins since hosts protect globally -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... so how do you LIKE "EATING YOUR WORDS" chump? About as much as you did on 'whitelisting being impossible in hosts' too (BIG FAIL on your part)? Absolutely -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... you STUPID little shit... lol!

... apk

JavaScript is a completely separate technology from Java. Java was the "in thing" back in the days when Brendan Eich at Netscape created a programming language that was originally going to be called LiveScript, so unfortunately they decided to rename it from LiveScript to JavaScript in the hope of catching the media’s interest.

and here

JavaScript, aka Mocha, aka LiveScript, aka JScript, aka ECMAScript,

The Java- prefix suggests that JavaScript is somehow related to Java, that it is a subset or less capable version of Java. It seems that the name was intentionally selected to create confusion, and from confusion comes misunderstanding. JavaScript is not interpreted Java. Java is interpreted Java. JavaScript is a different language.

The Question: What's the difference between JavaScript and Java? The best answer on stackoverflow

Java and Javascript are similar like Car and Carpet are similar.

So, you got any evidence showing the GP was right? Because the GP, contrary to your claim, ignored the facts.

In my copy of Firefox on Xubuntu, backspace does nothing if a text area isn't focused. If I want to go back I can press Alt+Left. When I started typing this post, I didn't know if it's default or if I had previously done what is described on the first result from Google firefox disable backspace. Short answer: put about:config in the location bar, put backspace in the search bar, and change the value of browser.backspace_action to 2 (nothing). Turns out it defaults to 0 (navigate back) on Windows and 2 elsewhere since late 2006.

Firefox 29 didn't get worse in this manner. The only change I have noticed in the last version changes is that beginning with some version in the early twenties, you couldn't use another search for the address bar than the dedicated search bar right to the URL bar. It was then when I learned of smart keywords, and now I really like them. I've added all important search engines (and even the wayback machine, in case I encounter a deadlink), and I need to type only one letter to access them. Firefox should ship some default (short) keywords, they are very useful. In the omnibox question, Firefox is better than Chrome, as when you input httpq://example.com or somenonexistentwebpageandsoon.com to firefox, you get an error page. In chrome you get a search. In Firefox, you can also turn off search from the URL bar if you want.

The Yahoo! mail problem has been fixed in trunk, so it will soon work again in SeaMonkey.

These: http://forums.mozillazine.org/...

One can summarize as
"The Firefox has been REMOVED. You will have to find an add-on that restores functionality."

You can also use custom keywords with Bookmarks:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Usin...

I alias google to "g", so when I want to search, i just type in the location bar: "g these are my search terms".

It's also practical to do Google searches in specific languages. For example, I use "ge" for google-english, "gf" for google-french, etc.

Mozilla Foundation
Top 21 Excuses
for Not Fixing the
Firefox Memory and CPU Hogging bugs

These are actual excuses given at one time or another. They are not all the excuses, just the top 20.

1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build. [The same memory and CPU hogging bug has been reported many, many times over a period of TEN years.]

2) Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important. [The bug eventually causes Firefox to take 100% of the power of one CPU, and makes Windows 7 unusable, even after Firefox is killed. The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox, those who do a lot of research online.]

3) Yes, this bug exists, but it is not a common occurrence. [Numerous users have reported the bug. See the links.]

4) Works for me. [The bug is complicated to reproduce, so the developers did a simplified test, which didn't show the bug.]

5) No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report, they would know that there is often no TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated. TalkBack does not generate a report if Firefox is hogging the CPU. TalkBack cannot generate a report if the bug takes 100% of the CPU time.]

6) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. [They didn't bother to reproduce the bug using the detailed information provided.]

7) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. [The other bugs aren't specified.]

8) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the same use does not crash any version of Chrome or Opera.]

9) I don't like the way you worded your bug report. [So, he didn't read it or think about it.]

10) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself. [Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem, and we may fix it.]

11) Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the users.

12) If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be trolling. [They say this even though Firefox and Mozilla instability is beginning to be reported in media such as Information Week. See the links to magazine articles in this Slashdot comment: Firefox is the most unstable program in common use [slashdot.org].]

13) Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]

14) Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile. [The same bug has been reported many times over a period of five years. One of the reports discusses an extensive test in both Linux and Windows that used a completely clean installation of the operating systems, not just a clean profile. The CPU hogging bug and instability was just as severe.]

15) If you are technically knowledgeable, you can spend several hours (or days) trying to discover the problem: Standard diagnostic - Firefox [mozillazine.org]. [Firefox has "Standard Diagnostics". It has become accepted that some users will have severe problems. !!! ]

16) I won't actually read the (many) bug reports, but I will give you some complicated technical speculation. [This pretends to be helpful but, on investigation, is shown to have nothing to do with the bugs.]

17) It's understandable that Firefox developers become defensive when users report so many problems. [Translation: Firefox management is childlike, not adult.]

18) To spend smart developers' time going over reports of bugs generated by analysis tools would be a waste. [There have been 3 analysis tools recently used to find Firefox bugs, and many have been found: 1) A special tool designed by a Firefox developer. 2) Software by Coverity. 3) Klocwork's K

Thanks, UnknownSoldier, for this: "I just want FF's memory leak to be fixed instead of the devs ignoring it version after version, year after year."

I first reported that problem about 10 years ago.

Mozilla Foundation
Top 20 Excuses
for Not Fixing the
Firefox Memory and CPU Hogging bugs

These are actual excuses given at one time or another. They are not all the excuses, just the top 20.

1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build. [The same memory and CPU hogging bug has been reported many, many times over a period of TEN years.]

2) Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important. [The bug eventually causes Firefox to take 100% of the power of one CPU, and makes Windows 7 unusable, even after Firefox is killed. The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox, those who do a lot of research online.]

3) Yes, this bug exists, but it is not a common occurrence. [Numerous users have reported the bug. See the links.]

4) Works for me. [The bug is complicated to reproduce, so the developers did a simplified test, which didn't show the bug.]

5) No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report, they would know that there is often no TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated. TalkBack does not generate a report if Firefox is hogging the CPU. TalkBack cannot generate a report if the bug takes 100% of the CPU time.]

6) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. [They didn't bother to reproduce the bug using the detailed information provided.]

7) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. [The other bugs aren't specified.]

8) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the same use does not crash any version of Chrome or Opera.]

9) I don't like the way you worded your bug report. [So, he didn't read it or think about it.]

10) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself. [Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem, and we may fix it.]

11) Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the users.

12) If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be trolling. [They say this even though Firefox and Mozilla instability is beginning to be reported in media such as Information Week. See the links to magazine articles in this Slashdot comment: Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.]

13) Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]

14) Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile. [The same bug has been reported many times over a period of five years. One of the reports discusses an extensive test in both Linux and Windows that used a completely clean installation of the operating systems, not just a clean profile. The CPU hogging bug and instability was just as severe.]

15) If you are technically knowledgeable, you can spend several hours (or days) trying to discover the problem: Standard diagnostic - Firefox. [Firefox has "Standard Diagnostics". It has become accepted that some users will have severe problems. !!! ]

16) I won't actually read the (many) bug reports, but I will give you some complicated technical speculation. [This pretends to be helpful but, on investigation, is shown to have nothing to do with the bugs.]

17) It's understandable that Firefox developers become defensive when users report so many problems. [Translation: Firefox management is childlike, not adult.]

18) To spend smart developers' time going over reports of bugs generated by analysis tools would be a

Maybe because they don't have admin rights on a work pc, and still want to access their personal email.

Maybe I'm being grumpy but I don't think people should access personal e-mail accounts on their work computer.

and FWIW, yahoo disabled POP3 access on all of their non-paid accounts years ago.

Oh? From what I've read they enabled it back recently.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Yahoo

As long as the feature is opt in...

The "opt in" was more like "we're making you an offer you can't refuse." It was pushed as an update to an existing add-on. The page with the terms was deliberately confusing. The privacy policy was originally missing. Some users reported that if you refused the tracking, the add-on then blocked major sites such as Flickr.

I was amazed that got past Mozilla's approval process. They've sold out.

Today I was trying to lose Chrome, and go for another browser. I wasted about an hour and a half trying to sync Firefox between Android and my Mint Linux desktop, then gave up.

Then stop wasting your time. Use the XMarks addon. It is able to sync bookmarks among a number of browsers, including Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer. It is also available on Android.

I've been working on moving much of my on-line life out of the Googleverse. It has proved surprisingly difficult.

Today I was trying to lose Chrome, and go for another browser. I wasted about an hour and a half trying to sync Firefox between Android and my Mint Linux desktop, then gave up.

I tried Opera, which does install and sync with ease, and looks great, except that it refuses to display Google Calendar at all well.

What I'm finding is that Google has a lock on a lot of things that I use, that it can be difficult to replace many of them, and that the automagic Google integration is really something that I'll miss.