Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Removes Individual Cookie Management in Firefox 60 (ghacks.net)

Martin Brinkmann, writing for Ghacks: The most recent version of Firefox Nightly, currently at version 60, comes with changes to Firefox's cookie management. Mozilla merged cookie settings with site data in the web browser which impacts how you configure and manage cookie options. If you run Firefox 59 or earlier, you can load about:preferences#privacy to manage privacy related settings in Firefox. If you set the history to "use custom settings for history" or "remember history", you get an option manage cookie settings and to remove individual cookies from Firefox. A click on the link or button opens a new browser window in which all set cookies are listed. You can use it to find set cookies, look up information, remove selected or all cookies. Mozilla engineers changed this in recent versions of Firefox 60 (currently on the Nightly channel).

101 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Is this some kind of joke? by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I often need to whack a broken cookie for a single site. Now I have to blow out all my logins (and worse, my user's logins) just to fix one bad cookie? Are they nuts? You can kiss FF goodbye in any environment more complex than grandma's surfing the net. Everybody else is going to get fed up the first time their IT whacks everything instead of the one busted cookie.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mozilla just keeps thinking of new ways to make Firefox worse.

    2. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I advise a bit of patience before reacting strongly to this. The article indicates that this is part of a larger plan to reorganize the settings available to users. It is definitely reasonable to reorganize settings, especially to present them in a more intuitive manner. It's entirely possible that functionality to manage individual cookies will be reimplemented prior to an official release of Firefox 60. In that case, this would be much ado about nothing. Users should expect that nightly builds may be broken or incomplete. If Firefox 60 is released officially without the functionality to manage individual cookies, then users have a good reason to be angry. Let's wait and see what happens before ditching Firefox.

    3. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You probably still can. I don't care to check, because I don't particularly care about Firefox any more, but from what I can tell they're simplifying the "basic user" UI to make it merge all storage together, rather than show individual cookies.

      The dev tools (Ctrl-Shift-I) contain a UI that lets you view and manipulate ALL local storage, including individual cookies. It doesn't sound like this is going away. So if you need to remove a single cookie in Firefox, you can probably still do it through the dev tools.

      This probably isn't quite as bad an idea as the article wants you to think it is because I suspect most people who knew enough to remove individual cookies were probably using the dev tools anyway and not the cookie tools available via the preferences.

    4. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the new API allows this to be managed through an add-on, then I'm more-or-less okay with it. (Though the FF engineers should then write that plugin to restore missing functionality, amirite??)

      FF can't win. People complained (and still do) about "bloat" in the browser. The logical conclusion from the whining masses is that the "bloat" should be stripped-out. But then a feature is stripped out, and another set of people say "OH, NO, not THAT feature, I meant all the other features that I don't use".

      Yes, I like the capability to delete individual cookies, but if I have to install a plugin to do that, I'll do it. .. and hopefully that plugin doesn't spy on all my shit and transmit those cookies to Chinese servers, right?

    5. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Come again? I can delete bar.com's cookies without affecting them?

    6. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      I advise a bit of patience before reacting strongly to this.

      You're absolutely right. I'm taking my strong reaction over to reddit.

    7. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looks like Cookie Manager can replace the lost functionality:

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by war4peace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree, and here's why.
      While it's true that this is a nightly build, it's false to say "wait". The sooner the customer base reacts, the greater the chance this functionality change will be looked at and changed BEFORE it goes into release.
      I'm past the "let's hope they don't do it" hope, that mentality died years ago.
      And yes, I would be one of the affected users, there's a corporate product that I use all the time (part of my job) that consistently mangles cookies, and the simplest solution is to delete cookies related to that environment only. This happens once or twice a week. Now, losing all my logins to 50-ish different websites which I am supposed to have easy access to at all times is a big no-no, a loss of productivity and increased frustration is what it's going to give me instead.

      They want to reorganize settings? Cool! Fork the code and knock yourselves out. Or give me a "classic mode" alternative. But really, removing functionality was never a good idea.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    9. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by PPH · · Score: 3

      Who's the other guy? I need to buy him a drink.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 2

      You probably still can. I don't care to check, because I don't particularly care about Firefox any more, but from what I can tell they're simplifying the "basic user" UI to make it merge all storage together, rather than show individual cookies.

      The dev tools (Ctrl-Shift-I) contain a UI that lets you view and manipulate ALL local storage, including individual cookies. It doesn't sound like this is going away. So if you need to remove a single cookie in Firefox, you can probably still do it through the dev tools.

      This probably isn't quite as bad an idea as the article wants you to think it is because I suspect most people who knew enough to remove individual cookies were probably using the dev tools anyway and not the cookie tools available via the preferences.

      Why do I, as a non-dev, need to access dev tools to do something that as a user, I'd like to be able to do? Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but it feels a bit like some clown making me pull my car over, and switch the gear selector lever into park to unlock the ability to change stations on the radio, so that I won't fiddle with it while I'm driving. Finding out that a car I'm looking at buying has this feature would probably make me choose a different car, or, if all cars had that feature, no car at all.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    11. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I often need to whack a broken cookie for a single site"

      Me too. Mostly to kill those ludicrous 'paywalls' of the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, etc.

      If this is real, I'll switch.

      It's bad enough that I have to delete the Google News app on my phone and reload it every day to kill the paywalls, because it doesn't allow deleting the cookies, but I'm sure not going to delete and reinstall FF just to continue reading.

    12. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, and you can disable telemetry collection without affecting telemetry collection.

    13. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Wow if only there was a solution to that problem. Yeah - don't run Nightly, which is primarily for Addon authors and folks that wish to help with FF development.

    14. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean that one can delete cookies for bar.com without affecting the foo.com cookies.
      If you have two cookies for bar.com you delete booth and can't delete just one.
      For that you will need to use the developer toolbar or a pluging, unless they fix it before release.

    15. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      I often need to whack a broken cookie for a single site. Now I have to blow out all my logins (and worse, my user's logins) just to fix one bad cookie?

      It appears they are grouping all local data (cookies, cache, etc) under one heading per site. You can still search by site and remove data specific to that site, leaving other sites' data untouched, but you can't clear only cookies and leave cache, or just one cookie out of several, for example.

      I suppose that if a large number of people use the same PC and user account, then yes, you will wipe out all other users' cache and cookies for the same domain. I guess Mozilla assumes most people would have a separate user account on the OS from other users, or would utilize separate browser profiles in some way to keep their data segregated from other surfers' info.

    16. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But when Mozilla finds out that a plugin implements something they removed, their next logical step is to remove the API which makes the plugin possible. If people could have and use the features which Mozilla's designers removed, that would make them look bad.

    17. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by Teun · · Score: 2

      A G&T with lime please.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    18. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      This is almost accurate. You can disable telemetry transmission without affecting telemetry collection. Fuck with telemetry collection settings and you'll bork the browser.

    19. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FF can't win. People complained (and still do) about "bloat" in the browser. The logical conclusion from the whining masses is that the "bloat" should be stripped-out. But then a feature is stripped out, and another set of people say "OH, NO, not THAT feature, I meant all the other features that I don't use".

      That's a little unfair. I saw a lot of people complaining about bloat that wasn't really related to the core browsing functionality and could just as well have been handled through add-ons. I'm not sure that in my entire life I've ever seen a Firefox user complain that its flexibility as an actual web browser was a bad thing or that the ability to configure everyday things like cookies should be nerfed.

      It seems to me that Firefox has, and has always had, a clear way to "win": It needs to be the trustworthy, reliable, highly customisable browser that made it attractive, and then focus on quality of implementation as an actual web browser instead of all the peripheral junk.

      Unfortunately, they seem to be doing almost everything but that. They gave up huge amounts of customisation with 57, and I am still irritated every time I have to use it by so many little things that are worse than they were before as a direct result, while literally nothing has improved perceptibly for me. It's also been flaky since 57 and just plain broken since 58 in several ways, making a mockery of the claims about the architecture changes improving speed and reliability. I must be the unluckiest person on the planet given how many people seem to defend that change every time the subject comes up!

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    20. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If that doesn't work, remember you can always uninstall Firefox without affecting your Firefox install.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    21. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I saw a lot of people complaining about bloat that wasn't really related to the core browsing functionality

      This.

      Pocket, Hello, Personas, Suggested Sites, search engine integration...

      Even Mozilla employees don't use Firefox:

      I head up Firefox marketing, but I use Chrome every day.

      Firefox is finished. I switched to Waterfox a while back, but I don't like the idea of relying on one guy (or whatever it's up to now) for security updates. I'll probably be looking at Opera soon.

    22. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 2

      So, it's like Internet Explorer now?

    23. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by Sir+Lurkalot · · Score: 1

      Margarita w/o salt...

    24. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by jaminJay · · Score: 2

      You should run that site in a container: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

      --
      Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
    25. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by jecowa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think I've been using dev tools edit cookies anyway. I don't know of any other way. I don't do it very often though. The shortcut key is Command-Option-I on the Mac version, btw.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
    26. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by doom · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever once complained about "bloat" in Firefox. My number one complaint about Firefox has been that they're remarkably lame about supporting the user-customization features (a regular pattern: they roll out a "feature", you do research to figure out how to shut it off, that breaks, you do more research to find out how to shut it off, then... ). And then they decided to break all of the addons (because "Security!").

    27. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by jimbo · · Score: 2

      Most power users edit individual cookies through the developer tools, they still can. A redundant method was removed.

    28. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      The article indicates that this is part of a larger plan to reorganize the settings available to users.

      In other words, very much a reason to react strongly. They're always reorganizing the things that aren't broken.

    29. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Whatever's going.

      We appear to have encountered an anomalous value of 2.

    30. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Maybe that's what FX development want... to externalize all shit to 3rd party addons.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    31. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Agreemsg. ISTR a lot of gabbling on about how Firefox was a platform, but they seem to want to bundle everything into it instead of treating it like a platform and providing the rest as addons. What would serve the userbase best (IMO obviously, but I've been doin' this web thing since you had to build your own browser from source and I have a thing or two to say about it) is to have at least the option of downloading just the browser, with just the core functionality. Frankly, complex cookie management would be an addon in this model, and there are already numerous addons which manage cookies in Firefox at a more detailed level than what is included in the shipping, default behavior.

      At the same time, taking out functionality without replacing it with something better is always a chilling sign. I'm not against removing functionality from the base interface, I'm highly in favor of it. However, I also opine that the functionality should first be moved to an (official?) addon so that there is no loss of functionality for the users who are currently depending upon it.

      It is a sign of a lack of faith amongst the userbase in the good will of the developers that something like this happening in a nightly has produced so much furor. In general, Firefox developers have a reputation for ignoring the wishes of the users, and it's one that I think is not entirely unearned.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Open developer tools, click storage.

    33. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by lsllll · · Score: 1

      You can kiss FF goodbye in any environment more complex than grandma's surfing the net.

      Actually THOSE are the instances you can kiss FF goodbye, since grandma won't remember her username for any site she logs on to.

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    34. Re: Is this some kind of joke? by lsllll · · Score: 1

      Oh man. I already commented on this thread or I would have modded you up. Funniest shit.

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    35. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by lsllll · · Score: 1

      They gave up huge amounts of customisation with 57, and I am still irritated every time I have to use it by so many little things that are worse than they were before as a direct result, while literally nothing has improved perceptibly for me.

      The one thing that pisses the shit out of me is the warnings on the login/password input boxes when the site is not SSL. First of all, the browser doesn't know if the code that posts the form uses SSL or not. You can't deduce whether the connection is going to be SSL just based on the "action" parameter of the form.

      Secondly, SSL is a piece of shit anyways. It doesn't mean anything. ANYBODY can get an SSL certificate. I myself paid for it for a year before I moved to a free option. Plus it's highly vulnerable to MITM attack since valid CAs issued CA certificate to bogus companies (cough, BlueCoat). Firefox fucked that functionality (or fuckily added that functionality, whichever is correct.

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    36. Re:Is this some kind of joke? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Even Mozilla employees don't use Firefox:

      I head up Firefox marketing, but I use Chrome every day.

      That's misrepresenting what was written. The author actually says they use both Firefox and Chrome.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. As always by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is why you never let your programmers program your applications. No good can come of it.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  3. The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When is Mozilla going to realize that Firefox got popular because of developers and power users and the fact that they keep doing things like this that are hostile to developers and power users is a contributing factor to Firefox's decline in usage?

    1. Re:The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by Teun · · Score: 1

      Same here, Netscape was the reason I still use Meta+N to start Firefox...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Chrome may have market share, but the last time I looked it was hopeless for my use case. Firefox now isn't as good as it was last year, but it's still (version 52) a lot better than Konqueror, which is my second place choice.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      Chrome has over 60% of the browser market. Regular people "marketers" then conclude firefox needs to be more like chrome to get their numbers up.

    4. Re: The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by jimbo · · Score: 1

      Most power users edit individual cookies through the developer tools, available through UI or keyboard shortcut. There were three ways to mess with cookies, one which was redundant was removed.

    5. Re:The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      You've got it all wrong, dude. Mozilla is very much aware that developers need great features, so they're just forcing people to use the ultra-powerful scripting console in Web Developer mode. It's good for you! Nobody needs those fancy-pants graphical interfaces!

      Heaven forbid they allow the ability to add your own buttons to the toolbar and run scripts with a click. Get to the console, you slacker.

      In other news, Linux continues to be ignored by the unwashed masses for the same reasons.

    6. Re:The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by jarle.aase · · Score: 1

      If I wanted Chrome, I would have used Chrome.

      Making FF more Chrome-like will not attract more users. It will just alienate more of their remaining users. I hate everything about Chrome, from calling home to to the crappy user interface. Personally, I use the Firefox ESR release under Windows and an old version under Linux . When those expire, I will find something else. Or build my own browser if I have to. *That* is how much I like Chrome!

      Hi FF: I want to see the URL I am connecting to. I want dialog boxes with fine-graded control over privacy and security settings. If I mistype an url, or by accident type something else into the url widget - i *don't* want to search for it. Did you hear me? That is a feature from hell! You are losing because you are looking at Google in stead of using your own brains and *differencing* yourself from Chrome. Chrome is poison!

    7. Re:The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

      You lack curiosity.

    8. Re:The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Forgetting to notice that Chrome grew such a big marketshare *because* FF irritations drove users to look for alternatives, and once they find one, most never look back.

      And when the primary choice becomes Chrome, or a buggy imitation of Chrome, which d'ya suppose will win more users?

      [Me, I use SeaMonkey as my primary, PaleMoon as my secondary, Chrome as a last resort. I haven't even installed FF in years, and that's entirely their own fault.]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:The Chrome plating of Firefox continues by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      chrome won not because it's a better product. it won because google search is the most popular web search engine, and every time you visit it you get an ad from them asking you to install it.

  4. WTF? by sremick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously? I use this all the time. This REALLY pisses me off. Sure, someone will quickly make an add-on, but basic core functionality shouldn't depend on a pile of third-party add-ons.

    1. Re:WTF? by allo · · Score: 2

      Or waterfox. Has a more recent code base with security patches and performance improvements.

    2. Re:WTF? by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...basic core functionality shouldn't depend on a pile of third-party add-ons.

      Tell that to the Gnome 3 devs and watch them laugh at you.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:WTF? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There don't seem to be deb packages for either of those on the repository. I'd really prefer a browser that a group I sort of trust has validated.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:WTF? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Or waterfox.

      But it's stuck at Firefox 56, which is now two major versions behind. Consequently Waterfox doesn't have things like the new WebAssembly compiler. Compare Waterfox and Firefox in this WebAssembly compilation benchmark.

      The Waterfox project says they'll be developing a “new” browser, whatever that means. Maybe they'll be switching engines to Blink or WebKit.

    5. Re:WTF? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Watch me stop bothering to even look at Gnome-desktop distros.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:WTF? by allo · · Score: 1

      Waterfox is currently kind of 56esr. The next release will be based on Firefox 60esr with removed XUL features backported. So you will get the quantum engine, your new web assembly, and other new standards.

    7. Re:WTF? by allo · · Score: 1

      Did you report a bug for your distribution?

      $ reportbug wnpp # work needed and propopsed packages
      And then file if you either request a package if someone volunteers or if you want to stark packaging it. Debian does not have a crystal ball to know which packages are needed for you, but ways to provide feedback about that.

    8. Re:WTF? by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time to switch to Palemoon browser

      I recently switched, on two of my three machines. Haven't switched on the third just because it will be retired soon, and so I've prevented FF from updating on it. I see Mozilla engineers are eager to support my decision to abandon Firefox.

      I've used Firefox as long as it's existed. Before that I used Netscape, though I also used IE, Opera, and HotJava on various systems, for purposes of comparison, and I've on occasion tested things with Chrome and Safari. Before Netscape I used Mosaic; before that I used Lync and CERN www. (And of course to this day I occasionally use wget and the like, or just nc for simple GETs.)

      Modern Firefox, in my opinion, is horrible. It started becoming horrible with Australis, but at least it was possible to undo that damage. With Quantum, it's not worth trying to use it. A quarter-century legacy thrown away.

  5. Done with FF by StuartHankins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First they broke a lot of extensions including ScrapBook which I've used for a very long time. So I reverted back to 56 which was a pain but doable, hoping there would be some upgrade path. Nope, the new architecture doesn't support a lot of the plugin features and I'm hearing that repeatedly from multiple places. They got rid of the status bar and I'm using an extension so I can read mouseover events easier. Now they're making it difficult to delete individual cookies? WTF, Firefox team. You know, it's been a nice run and all, but I'm spending more time keeping it working the same way than I should be. Enough is enough.

    1. Re:Done with FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was also the architecture that enabled the core mission: a lightweight browser than can run on anything and be extended in any way it needs to be.

      Since the new architecture cannot say any of that with a straight face, what the hell is the project mission for Firefox now, other than "keep shipping something called Firefox"?

    2. Re:Done with FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who gives a shit about speed if it doesn't do what you want?

    3. Re:Done with FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty piss poor trade-off for the lack of flexibility. Everyone stopped caring about browser speed years ago and in any case Firefox was already faster than the competition.

    4. Re:Done with FF by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      You know, it's been a nice run and all, but I'm spending more time keeping it working the same way than I should be. Enough is enough.

      I'm using Chrome as Firefox 38.0.2 will not display. Process Explorer shows it loads just no GUI.
      When I get control of FireFox again I'm disabling updating. Who knows Opera 12 next...

      That's it's Win10 problem, with Linux Mint after disabling Hardware acceleration it will then show videos.

    5. Re:Done with FF by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I never experienced the "slowness" that some people seem to have seen in older versions, and I haven't noticed any perceptible speed-ups since 57 either.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    6. Re:Done with FF by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Where? (I'm not about to install a nightly, so I can't find out directly. But without knowing that, I've started considering alternatives while I've got time to plan.)

      Firefox has made LOTS of bad choices recently from my point of view. I don't use it on a phone or a tablet, I use it on a desktop, and I want a browser that works well on a desktop. I also want one that lets me keep open a sidebar of nested bookmarks, which is why I'm still using Firefox despite their recent garbage moves about the menubar, etc. But they've made *enough* bad moves that I've started looking for a decent alternative, because who can tell what idiotic brainstorm they'll come up with next.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Done with FF by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      what the hell is the project mission for Firefox now, other than "keep shipping something called Firefox"?

      10 IF Users > 0 THEN ruin something and release it

      20 GOTO 10

    8. Re:Done with FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My old car was slow, so I replaced it with a faster car. Too bad the new car can't turn right or left, but damn, it's fast.

    9. Re:Done with FF by doom · · Score: 1

      Right algorithm, but it looks so much cooler written in Rust.

  6. Misleading headline by campuscodi · · Score: 5, Informative

    The option is still there. You just have to press the "Settings" button in the Cookies section. Weird choice of words, I'll admit that. Some Mozilla UI designer needs to get in trouble, that's for damn sure.

    1. Re:Misleading headline by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, the "Show Cookies" button is still there in Nightly and now called "Settings" (presumably a temporary label, because there aren't actually settings in there) but the thing TFA is talking about is that the behaviour of the popup that appears when you press that button has changed from per-cookie to per-site. Previously you got a list of folders, one for each site that has cookies stored. When you expand a folder you get a list of individual cookies that you can see and selectively remove.

      Now you simply get a list of websites. For every site on the list you can see how many cookies are stored and how much data is in local storage. It makes sense to group this together here, because local storage and cookies are nearly the same thing. But you can no longer see or delete individual cookies - instead, you delete ALL cookies and storage for a given site or none at all. So the headline is correct in that you can no remove individual cookies from about:preferences.

      But you can still fiddle with a site's individual cookies in other ways, like visiting that site and using the developer tools, or grabbing an extension like Cookie Manager.

    2. Re:Misleading headline by campuscodi · · Score: 1

      That's not true. You can still remove individual cookies on a per site basis.
      Click on the left side end of the url bar on the information button
      Expand right
      Click "More Information"
      Security Tab
      View Cookies
      Remove the individual cookie you want to remove.

    3. Re:Misleading headline by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly what I said. You can no longer remove individual cookies from about:preferences but you can still do it in other ways.

  7. Yep, I jumped the gun by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    on a click bait-y headline. Though to be honest after the $h!t show that was their extension API changes I was honestly prepared for something that boneheaded.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. Car analogy by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    The A/C controls are now located in the trunk. For your own good, of course.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:Car analogy by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A live mic and cam with the hood and trunk locked down.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Nice goin' Mozilla... by rnturn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is the ability to selectively clear cookies holding back Firefox development that you're making this function a 3rd-party add-on? Really? (An add-on that may not even exist for some time while it's being developed/debugged.)

    What incentive do I have to switch back to Firefox from Chrome where I already have to rely on a external add-on to manage cookies? I'm thinking there isn't any reason to come back.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  10. Actually, this is good by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Firefox has been racing to the bottom for the past few years, and is already almost unusable as of the latest builds. It's slow, buggy, and becoming as limited and useless as Chrome.

    The faster it craters, the better, as only that will offer us the realistic prospect of a new competitor.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:Actually, this is good by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      Firefox has been racing to the bottom for the past few years, and is already almost unusable as of the latest builds. It's slow, buggy, and becoming as limited and useless as Chrome.

      The faster it craters, the better, as only that will offer us the realistic prospect of a new competitor.

      So what's a good alternative? I need a browser that has reasonable ad filtering and the ability to inject HTTP headers into all my requests. (I am not being snarky, it's an honest question)

    2. Re:Actually, this is good by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That, however, is freeware, not FOSS, or even open source. So when you use that, you're operating on blind trust.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. Re:Now they are burning the corpse. by vux984 · · Score: 1

    Now enjoying watching this train wreck..

    Wait... you are watching the firefox missteps from Chrome? What part do you enjoy exactly? The exhiliration of being the first one in the crash so you can lord it over the people coming behind you a month later? Your the guy laughing at ships sailing into iceberg waters ... from the Titanic.

    Pretty much every misstep firefox makes is because it's following Chrome's lead.

  12. Just to be on the safe side by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    I have disabled automatic updates on my FF58. I never use it for anything requiring a login anyway, I just use it so I can squash annoying/overbearing advertisements anyway, but this, if true, will mean I will be ditching Firefox, or simply just using a progressively more and more outdated version. That said...

    All good things come to an end. The internet seems to have peaked, and now it's just going to go slowly downhill with the end of net neutrality, so it's time to figure out what things are done WITH the net now, and how to do it without the internet again as it was in the old days, and get used once more to doing things that way once again. It was great while it lasted but I think in the near future I'm going to be using my computer increasingly offline, to prepare for a future in which the internet is simply not safe to use, not worth paying for, not worth the trouble.

    Once upon a time, there was no internet, and I remember those days. Had a C64, and swapped files with friends on 5.25" floppy disks, and though these days it's more likely to be USB thumbdrives or CD-ROMS, things are heading back in that direction.

    Seriously, I'm about done with all this high-tech bullshit. Going to trade-in my iPhone for a dumb phone and just be happy not to have to charge it every goddamned day, and not have it constantly distracting me with bullshit. It's gone to far and it's time to end it.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  13. Fixed that for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mozilla XXmoves Individual Cookie Management in Firefox 60

  14. This actually makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The main point is that they are putting Site Data (the JavaScript APIs localStorage and siteStorage) and cookies together, since they are functionally the same thing: they let sites store persistent data on your computer.

    So the new UI is organized by site, and shows you how big the data is, and how many cookies. And you can still pick and choose a site, and delete its data.

    For now, it seems like the ability to delete some but not all of a site's cookies, and to inspect cookie values, is lost. As a developer I've done this kind of thing before, but it seems pretty damn marginal. Even I as a browser control freak probably won't miss it. Just delete the whole site's data, and you're new to them. And if you really want the ability back, I'm sure there will be extensions by day one.

    Considering that up to now, you might have been carefully deleting some site's cookies, but had no way to look or delete their localstorage, this seems like an improvement.

    1. Re:This actually makes sense by Teun · · Score: 1

      +3
      There has been too much scaremongering and too little reading of details.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:This actually makes sense by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The reports are, however, that you still can't manage individual cookies, even when to go to the UI locale (Settings?) for the sites.

      Not good. I'm going to have to think long and hard about whether it's even acceptable. I rarely manage individual cookies, but still...

      Let's put it this way, I've started looking for an acceptable alternative. That I haven't found a good choice yet doesn't mean that at some point I won't decide it's worth the pain of changing to something that wasn't as good, even though it's now no better than it was.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:This actually makes sense by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

      It may be worth waiting to see if this comes to pass. At the moment we're discussing rumours and "what may be".

      At the risk of making a huge generalisation here... people who get hung up about cookies & privacy [and I include myself in this set] are generally also technically competent and able to hack around about:config pages. Loss of a UI, whilst hurting the general population (and acclimatising them to the inevitability of cookies & tracking) is not so big a deal for those who manage cookies already.

      That said, changing the way they're managed is fine; removing the facility to do so is a retrograde step and another nudge towards alternatives.

  15. Is Slashdot deliberately sabotaging Fierfox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The analysis of the interface change comes from a work-in-progress nightly version, yet the title makes it look like it refers to the final version. The feature has not been disabled, just moved around. Yet many readers are commenting as if yet another feature was missing from Firefox. Is there a deliberate attempt to paint Mozilla in the worse possible way to harm the project, or mere clickbait to catch eyeballs?

    1. Re:Is Slashdot deliberately sabotaging Fierfox? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That would be a fair comment if Firefox hadn't taken so bloody many absolutely bad choices and committed them to the stable tree. As it is, I count this fair warning of what's coming.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. Re: Mozilla cannot be trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mozilla's actions are at odds with their publicly professed goals.They hid third party cookies in the previous release and now want to do this. Why even waste time and resources on a user hostile action, how will these actions benefit users?

    They are mainly sucking up to Google's interests and hide behind political answers when called out. Firefox now seems to exist more as token competition to Chrome in the browser marketplace so no one can accuse Google of being a monopoly.

    We need a genuine open source alternative that places end user interests first than tokenism.

  17. "Ditching" freedom for dependency is never wise. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    If Firefox 60 is released officially without the functionality to manage individual cookies, then users have a good reason to be angry. Let's wait and see what happens before ditching Firefox.

    It would be sadly ironic to "ditch Firefox" by switching to a non-free (proprietary, user-subjugating) browser in response to the lack of user control Firefox didn't give you in this build. If there's one thing we can say with certainty about proprietary software: users only get as much control as the proprietors want to give. There are a lot of examples showing how proprietary software is often malware. Technically less capable free software is a better choice than technically more capable proprietary software because of software freedom (the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published software)—that freedom is the means by which technical issues can be resolved. One can make less capable software more capable by leveraging one's software freedom. One cannot add software freedom to proprietary software.

  18. Same here by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I have a couple of news websites, that only allow you x number of "free" reads per month (local newspaper sites). But if you blow out the INDIVIDUAL cookie for that site, you can read 5 more. I made a shortcut to get to the cookie, then type in the cookie name to blow just the 3 cookies associated with that site. Now I have to blow them ALL out? WTH?

    1. Re: Same here by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      That's probably why they removed it.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  19. Optimism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The sooner the customer base reacts, the greater the chance this functionality change will be looked at and changed BEFORE it goes into release.

    You seem pretty optimistic regarding Mozilla's ability to listen to their users and behave accordingly. What makes you think they would start doing that any time soon?

    1. Re:Optimism by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Not much I guess, but at least word would go out and people would be able to plan ahead. I for one am thankful for this article, otherwise I wouldn't have known.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  20. Fork Them! by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    They are going to keep pulling this stuff until FF is forked.
    It worked for LibreOffice.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  21. Re:Google is in control of Mozilla and Firefox by doom · · Score: 1

    I realize this sort of reasoning seems plausible, but it's predicated on the unfounded, unproven assumption that mozilla.org makes decisions for reasons that have an underlying logic to them.

  22. Re:Want a cookie? by Wootery · · Score: 1

    You're in luck! Google and Facebook are in the business of sucking up everything they can.

  23. Vivaldi by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

    I switched to Vivaldi. A little rough around the edges still but very usable. I get blink and extensions from the Chrome store (like Google Translate and the Tideways extension). In addition there is finer control over zoom increments and a whole bunch of other nice improvements over Chrome.

    Looking forward to their sync implementation (coming soon) and Android app (coming later).

  24. Re:Who is corrupting Mo$illa? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

    ad tracking companies is paying Mo$illa to cripple their browser

    Firefox has built-in tracking protection. Set it to "always" to have it turned on at all times. See the documentation.

    Is that also part of the evil plan of these ad tracking companies?

  25. Hey sorry we forgot to tell you..... by chasm22 · · Score: 1

    From the original article; "Update: Some commenters stated that Firefox users may still manage individual cookies in the following ways for now:

    Load chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul to display the dialog.
    Click on the information button in the Firefox address bar, and navigate to "right arrow" > More Information > View Cookies. Remove the site name to list all set cookies.
    Use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl-Shift-I to open the Developer Tools and switch to the Storage tab (enable it under settings if it is not there). This lists only the cookies for the active site."

    This is also mentioned;

    "Mozilla engineers changed this in recent versions of Firefox 60 (currently on the Nightly channel).

    If you open the privacy section of about:preferences, you may notice the following:

    History lists only three options. The "request cookies from websites" option is no longer listed under History.
    A new Cookies and Site Data section is available. It lists the cookie preferences that were listed under History in previous versions.
    The "show cookies" link has been removed from the history. It is replaced by a combined management option that includes Site Data and cookies.
    firefox 60 cookie management

    Cookie settings moved from "use custom settings for history" to a better location in the preferences. Firefox users who did not select the custom option were probably never exposed to the cookie preferences in first place. Also, all options but one that existed previously are still there, some, however, under a different name.

    There is no "show cookies" button anymore; Mozilla moved it to Settings under "Cookies and Site Data". A click on the button displays the new management interface. It looks similar to the cookie management interface of previous versions of Firefox but includes storage as well now.Frp"

  26. Re:Whoa. Overreaction central. by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

    Forget that the UI was already shit and needed an overhaul

    The UI was just fine. It did the job. No overhaul or redesign was needed.

  27. Re: Mozilla cannot be trusted by lsllll · · Score: 1

    Why even waste time and resources on a user hostile action, how will these actions benefit users?

    How? Make things simpler. Go the Apple way. Take as many options as you can away from the user so that the user is left with not too many choices. "Hmm, should I delete all cookies? Well, it may fix the issue, so why not."

    It's funny. Even Microshaft Internet Exploder offers an option to remove individual cookies.

    --
    Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?