Slashdot Mirror


Slashdot Asks: Have You Switched To Firefox 57?

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.

64 of 589 comments (clear)

  1. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It updated itself. All my webpages now have more adverts, more pop-up windows, and is probably mining bitcoins in the background. My thought is: It should have been delayed until the more popular addons were ready.

    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    2. Re:Yes by luvirini · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > What else do you need?

      Classic theme restorer.

    3. Re:Yes by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:Yes by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Yes by Barny · · 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

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    6. Re:Yes by Streetlight · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seems to me I read that the person who wrote Classic Theme Restorer probably won't rewrite the extension because it requires some kind of access to the Firefox code (UI code?) he can't make use of.

      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.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    7. Re:Yes by xeoron · · Score: 2

      Gmail claims cookies are blocked, yet all other Google sites see my account

    8. Re:Yes by PixetaledPikachu · · 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

    9. Re:Yes by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re:Yes by theweatherelectric · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mozilla should have worked with noscript dev

      They did.

    11. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    12. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy shit, it's unbelievable how you Firefox fanatics treat Firefox's users and extension authors so terribly.

      The Firefox devs go out of their way to intentionally break Firefox's extension system for no good reason, and then force this release on the world prematurely, yet you somehow blame the extension authors when their extensions that worked perfectly fine with Firefox 56 don't work with Firefox 57?!

      On one hand, I can't believe you're actually being serious. But on the other hand, you are a Firefox fanatic, and this isn't the first time that Firefox fanatics have legitimately and honestly behaved in such an atrocious manner.

      It's no wonder users and extension authors are fleeing Firefox at such a rapid pace. You Firefox fanatics subject these victims to insane levels of abuse, and these victims really don't deserve any of it.

    13. Re:Yes by coastwalker · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    14. Re:Yes by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  2. No by fbobraga · · Score: 3, Informative

    Debian: ESR here

    1. Re:No by unrtst · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. Nope by plover · · 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.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      pre-57 NoScript -> 57 uMatrix (it even imports a NoScript backup)

      done!

    2. Re:Nope by drinkypoo · · Score: 3

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Nope by GrahamJ · · Score: 3, Informative

      The NoScript guys say an updated version will be out by the end of the week.

    4. Re:Nope by somenickname · · 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...

  4. Partially by DRichardHipp · · Score: 2

    Newer laptops have been updated (MacPro, Lenovo Win10) but I still need to recompile for my primary desktop (Ubuntu 16.04). Works fine for me. Firefox has been and continues to been my favorite browser.

  5. Yes and No by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, 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.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Yes and No by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Sorry... s/WebAssembly/WebExtensions/

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Nope. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      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.

  7. Nope, switched to chrome by robocord · · 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!

    1. Re:Nope, switched to chrome by theweatherelectric · · 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 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).

    2. Re:Nope, switched to chrome by markdavis · · 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.

  8. Unfortunately yes and then back. by luvirini · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Unfortunately yes and then back. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Unfortunately yes and then back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      https://www.ghacks.net/2017/11/13/customize-firefox-57-with-css/
      Your welcome.

    3. Re:Unfortunately yes and then back. by luvirini · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:Unfortunately yes and then back. by golden_donkey · · Score: 2

      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.

      Click hamburger menu on the right > Add-ons >Themes>Light. It is not intuitive though. One of my colleagues updated and his browser is blue as his Windows theme is blue. Mine is black. I like the new version as it is much faster. I use RSS and usually in the morning I click open all in tabs (usually 50 tabs) and the browser gets very slow. I notice that Slashdot pages load a bit faster now. But let's hope speed is permanent and it is not due to browser restart :)

  9. Yes by Lothsahn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Love it. Fast and fixes rendering issues I had in FF 56.

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
  10. No Upgrade Here by xbytor · · Score: 4, 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.

  11. Love it! by blahbooboo · · 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.

    1. Re:Love it! by blahbooboo · · Score: 2

      +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

    2. Re:Love it! by theweatherelectric · · Score: 4, 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.

  12. Yes by 89cents · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well I've always been a Firefox user and felt it was getting slow and bloated, but I am loving this update. I did a speed test this morning from www.speed-battle.com and peacekeeper.futuremark.com and Firefox 57 beat out Chrome 62 by quite a margin in most tests. Now, if Slashdot would change its favicon to use transparent corners instead of white corners, that one tab of mine wont look so funny.

  13. Moving to chrome by Presence+Eternal · · 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.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Yep!! by David_Hart · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Yep!! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  16. Firefox 57 finally pushed me over to Chrome by ugen · · 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.

    1. Re:Firefox 57 finally pushed me over to Chrome by ugen · · Score: 3, 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.

    2. Re: Firefox 57 finally pushed me over to Chrome by ugen · · Score: 2

      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 ;)

  17. Switching to Brave Browser by Anonymous Coward · · 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/

  18. Loaded question by slack_justyb · · 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* get done and (right now) everyone just bitches about NoScript. Color me unsurprised that the comment section over at Slashdot just becomes a "Why I hate _____" section. Because that's all Slashdot is now, a forum for people to tell other people why they hate whatever free technology they've been giving with zero effort on their part. How whatever this new shiny thing will never compare to whatever thing it was meant to replace that was invented oh so many moons ago. It's clearly a violation of whatever made up principals our Luddite collective deemed to be the gospel so many years ago.

    I mean, dang. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't on Slashdot. Mods, I await your flamebait scores, but its like everyday this place descends further into old tech guys yelling at each other about the good old days.

    1. Re:Loaded question by Presence+Eternal · · 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?

    2. Re:Loaded question by hyades1 · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  19. Better managed alternatives by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Alternatives:
    Waterfox portable.
    Pale Moon 64-bits
    Pale Moon 32-bits
    Pale Moon Portable

    Ghostery does not install in Pale Moon, so I use the Disconnect extension. Disconnect's interface is not as well-designed.

  20. Firefox is my browser of choice. by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

    Firefox is, and has been, my browser of choice.

  21. perversely impressive by JackSpratts · · Score: 4, 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.

  22. Breaking Things since 2011 by Excelcia · · 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.

  23. I Tried it by hduff · · Score: 2

    I'm trying FF57 for 64-bit Linux.
    Facebook brings it to a screeching halt.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  24. I'm warming up to FireFox again by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    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.

  25. Yes by jimbo · · Score: 2

    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.

  26. No by trawg · · Score: 3, 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?

  27. What else? by fafalone · · Score: 3, Informative

    How's about Tab Mix Plus? Which will probably *never* be ready, maybe a far less useful version at best.

    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.

  28. uMatrix by Koen+Lefever · · Score: 2

    NoScript - "but it will be out later today!" only works for so long

    Check out uMatrix, you might find it far superior to NoScript.

    --
    /. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
  29. READ FIREFOX'S PRIVACY POLICY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mark Davis, before you make an asinine claim about Firefox like:

    3) Contains no Googleisms and Google tracking

    you should read Firefox's privacy policy!

    That way you'd see that it contains stuff like (emphasis added):

    Location data to Google's geolocation service: Firefox always asks before determining and sharing your location with a requesting website (for example, if a map website needs your location to provide directions). To determine location, Firefox may use your operating system’s geolocation features, Wi-fi networks, cell phone towers, or IP address, and may send this data to Google's geolocation service, which has its own privacy policy.

    and

    Webpage and technical data to Google’s SafeBrowsing service: To help protect you from malicious downloads, Firefox sends basic information about unrecognized downloads to Google's SafeBrowsing Service, including the filename and the URL it was downloaded from.

    and

    On iOS and Android: Firefox by default sends mobile campaign data to Adjust, our analytics vendor, which has its own privacy policy. Mobile campaign data includes a Google advertising ID, ...

    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".