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

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

Let's list the most famous ones:

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

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

Comments

Use less firefox

[hij]

Sadly, it looks like I will be using less firefox. On the plus side I will get some of that missing memory back.

Re:Use less firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Use less firefox

[PopeRatzo]

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

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

Re:Use less firefox

[hairyfeet]

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

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

Seamonkey

[that this is not und]

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.

Gone

[amiga3D]

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:Gone

[Dutch Gun]

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.

without my security extensions, play Vivaldi

[evolutionary]

If Mozilla doesn't come up with a way of keeping the extensions we have grown to love firefox for, I guess I won't be using FireFox. It is strange that Mozilla would not have taken this into account. I've been playing with Vivaldi and I'm a fan of the browser (as well as his music) Have Vivaldi with Umatrix installed, which is like "NoScript" on steroids. So for me Vivaldi is a good alternative to Firefox.

Re:without my security extensions, play Vivaldi

[Seq]

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

[dunkelfalke]

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?

[fahrbot-bot]

NoScript

Because NoScript is migrating 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?

[JohnFen]

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".

[Futurepower(R)]

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

My list, updated from the list I posted to another story. Every add-on is marked "Legacy" in Firefox version 55.0.3 64-bits.

1. Adblock Latitude For Pale Moon browser only. Blocks display of ads. "Adblock Latitude is a direct fork of Adblock Plus made specifically for the Pale Moon browser."
2. BetterPrivacy Deletes Local Shared Objects, LSOs. LSOs are files placed on your computer by the Adobe Systems Flash plug-in. Use of Adobe Flash allows web sites to track you, permanently even though your browser is configured to delete the files known as "Cookies" after each re-starting of your operating system.
3. CanvasBiocker Prevents websites from using the Javascript <canvas> API to fingerprint them.
4. Classic Theme Restorer Quoting 3 paragraphs:
   
   "This add-on will stop working when Firefox 57 arrives in November 2017."
   
   "This add-on will stop working when Firefox 57 arrives in November 2017 and Mozilla drops support for XUL / XPCOM / legacy add-ons. It should still work on Firefox 52 ESR until ESR moves to Firefox 59 ESR in 2018 (~Q2)".
   
   "There is no 'please port it' or 'please add support for it' this time, because the entire add-on eco system changes and the technology behind this kind of add-on gets dropped without replacement."
   
   
5. Cookies Manager+
6. Disconnect
7. Facebook Blocker Prevents Facebook from following you everywhere there are Facebook "Like" buttons.
8. Firebug "Firebug integrates with Firefox to put a wealth of development tools at your fingertips while you browse. You can edit, debug, and monitor CSS, HTML, and JavaScript live in any web page..."
9. Ghostery DON'T UPDATE. New versions don't allow sufficient user control.
   USE THIS: ghostery-5.4.10-sm+an+fx.xpi Link: Version 5.4.10
   Ghostery sells data it collects. (Business Insider, Jun 18, 2013)
   Ghostery web site
10. HTTPS Everywhere Doesn't install in Pale Moon. Encrypts traffic by using HTTPS encryption rather than HTTP wherever web sites accept HTTPS. See How to Protect Your Data After Congress Passed Legislation That Allows Your Internet Search History to Be Sold (Vogue Magazine, March 29, 2017)
11. Mozilla Archive Format For Firefox and Waterfox only. Saves web pages. For the Pale Moon browser, use MozArchiver.
12. MozArchiver For Pale Moon browser only. Like Mozilla Archive Format that is used with Firefox. Saves web pages.
13. NoScript "The NoScript Firefox extension provides extra protection for Firefox, Seamonkey and other mozilla-based browsers: this free, open source add-on allows

Same as today, using Pale Moon

[gosand]

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

Pale Moon

[JBMcB]

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

How do I see my life?

[hawguy]

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.

Mod parent UP.

[Futurepower(R)]

Track poor managers: Quoted from the parent comment: "We need to keep track of who is in charge at Firefox so we can make sure they never get our business again, no matter what project they migrate to like locusts when FF is dead."

Re:Mod parent UP.

[Man On Pink Corner]

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.

The Death of FIrefox

[shubus]

Yes, Firefox seem to be adept at shooting itself in the foot, but this time Mozilla will lose a very significant segment of their user base: There is a large user base who depend on the Add-On's which make Firefox so useful. The real showstopper for me is AdBlock Plus. Best we can do now is NOT update and keep checking on "Legacy" items in our Add-On's to which vendors have re-coded. Likely most will not within a decent time frame so I'll probably be jumping ship along with the other heavy Add-On users.

mozilla + rust = servo

[jopsen]

https://servo.org/ Browsers engines are hugely complicated, and forking then will always be hard, very hard.
Mozilla Firefox is and will remain the best option... with the work being put into servo and features being ported over to firefox we're seeing dramatic performance improvements coming up...

Extensions breaking is always sad, but there is finally a WebExtensions spec, so breakage can be prevented in the future. The reason extensions are breaking is because they historically have been tied to semi-internal APIs; and have been holding back development... In fact the power previously given to extensions could be considered dangerous.

Re:mozilla + rust = servo

[JohnFen]

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

[phantomfive]

It's fine to make a stable API, but if WebExtension makes GreaseMonkey impossible, then it's a broken API. It doesn't matter how stable that API is, it's broken. The developers who don't understand are geniuses of the apple bar kind.

Re:mozilla + rust = servo

[higuita]

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

I'm in the throes of re-writing my extension

[rsilvergun]

I've been putting it off because the APIs aren't completely settled and I don't much relish the thought of doing it twice (my app's a tricky beast thanks to some quirks of Windows pathing among other things). I think that's the biggest problem. Firefox is making all these changes but they haven't really settled them, meanwhile they're rolling them out to production. I'm guessing that since they just don't have the money they used to they haven't got a lot of other options besides what's basically an all inclusive beta program.

Re:The same as before with one exception

[pr0fessor]

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:Use a good browser...

[dreamchaser]

Some people like cross platform browsers because they, you know, use more than one platform.

XUL should be kept for existing extensions only

[Eravnrekaree]

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.

Re:Already stopped updating

[GuB-42]

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.

Re:Ummm....

[JohnFen]

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:Ummm....

[adrn01]

However, the Palemoon site only has Palemoon explicit addons/extensions. When Firefox drops support for current addons, one would expect them to delete them all from their site as well. Someone better mirror before they are gone forever.