This is what I wonder. Making FF into a Chrome clone won't be enough -- if there's no difference, then the logical thing to do is use Chrome. I used to think that privacy was the edge they were going for, but some of their more recent changes make me question that assumption.
I don't report such errors. I used to, a long while ago, but it was generally a waste of time so I fell out of the habit. I either work around problems myself or stop using the site.
I don't think I ever remember opera crashing on me
Crashing is primarily what I think of when I think of Opera. My experience was horrible. That was years ago, and they probably (I hope!) fixed that since then, but it was certainly something that came with Opera for me.
As I said, I do understand the rationale. I honestly do. I resent it when software eliminates useful functionality on the rationale that it's "for my own good". I'll decide what's for my own good and what isn't, thank you. If the functionality is too dangerous for Joe Random to use, then make an about:config setting to enable it.
Unfortunately, unless the change isn't as bad as Mozilla says, or unless they pull a rabbit out of their hat at the last minute, it doesn't matter to me if this API change eliminates add-on breakage in the future, because I won't be using Firefox.
I still haven't completed my assessment of the options, but right now, Pale Moon is looking most likely. If your prediction is correct, I may not have to change browsers. We'll see, but things are looking pretty grim.
I consider Classic Theme Restorer mandatory, and Mozilla says that something like that is simply impossible under the new scheme. If they make the UI configurable enough, I wouldn't need something like that. However, the entire direction of Firefox over the past couple of years has been away from allowing that amount of configurability, so it seems exceedingly unlikely that they'll have a change of heart this late in the game.
the time we had to register for a job at a state website and had to boot up XP with IE 6 as the site wouldn't render in any other browser and used VBScript.
Not only do I remember, I am being increasingly reminded -- the web is moving decidedly back to those days. I have to keep three browsers installed, because no one browser can handle all the web sites I need.
I'm just waiting for the "Best viewed with..." badges to return.
What am I missing, that someone else is getting all anxious over it?
Honest answer? This is describing me personally, but I suspect I'm not alone: I still use Firefox because it supports functionality that no other browser (aside from earlier versions/forks of Firefox) does.
I have also been using Firefox from the very beginning, and have a strong emotional connection with it.
When 57 hits and the functionality that I need goes away, I'll have to use something else. It's an emotional blow, A bit like losing the family pet. So the whole thing makes me feel sad and comes with a sense of loss.
DownThemAll is working off of an incorrect premise. (Chunk downloading hasn't been actually faster for a while.)
The reason I use DTA is not the chunk downloading, it's that DTA massively improves the entire process.
But I assume that there are other extensions that also fix the weaknesses of Firefox's download manager (I haven't actually checked), and that's why I don't consider it to be a showstopper issue.
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.
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.
I never said otherwise. I was talking about live reliability, not backups.
And, of course, if your RAID setups are in a third party server farm, you're in the same boat as people using google/aws/etc.
Not at all. If I have hardware sitting in a farm, and the farm goes down, I can still physically go there and retrieve my hard drives.
is far beyond the financial capabilities of the vast majority of small businesses and even many medium size businesses.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I manage it, and I'm not wealthy.
The hate on "the cloud" (the actual service, not the term) for its imperfections is just as irrational as hating on FedEx/UPS/USPS for their imperfections.
In a sense, yes. In another sense, it's understandable since cloud providers tend to sell themselves as being without such imperfections.
I never said it was impossible.
Then why are we debating? Since my only assertion was that it's possible and for some, the best option.
I don't "hate" on cloud services as a concept, by the way. My problem is twofold. First, I think that the way that cloudy companies market themselves is deceptive, and this "you can't do it as well as us" line is one of the deceptive sales tactics.
Second, I think that the way people are using the cloud is dangerous. They just ship their data off without thinking this stuff through, and then trust the companies entirely for security and reliability. Disaster looms down that path, sooner or later.
"The cloud" is, as you noted, nothing new at all. It used to be the way all computing was done. However, everyone seems to have forgotten that there are very real tradeoffs involved. The downsides of it are not insignificant -- which is why everyone rejoiced when microcomputers reduced the need for heavy iron.
Depends on the addon. The new API is much less powerful than the old, and some things that plugins can do right now won't be possible after 56. Classic Theme Restorer, for example, is impossible to replicate (according to Mozilla).
Overblown to you, perhaps. But for some people, like myself, this is not a small problem.
Current Firefox performance is awful compared to Chrome.
Perhaps -- I use Chrome as little as I can get away with, so I can't really compare the two.
However, personally, this doesn't matter even a little. FF performance is acceptable to me, and that there are browsers out there that are faster is only meaningful if they don't suck for me in other ways. Chrome definitely sucks for me in most ways.
And, going by everything that Mozilla has said about 57, Firefox will too.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I wonder. Making FF into a Chrome clone won't be enough -- if there's no difference, then the logical thing to do is use Chrome. I used to think that privacy was the edge they were going for, but some of their more recent changes make me question that assumption.
I don't report such errors. I used to, a long while ago, but it was generally a waste of time so I fell out of the habit. I either work around problems myself or stop using the site.
Of course I understand. Perhaps what you don't understand is that the rationale does not make the impact on me as a user any more acceptable.
Sorry, I'll stick with abbreviating it as "FF", because that makes more linguistic sense.
I don't think I ever remember opera crashing on me
Crashing is primarily what I think of when I think of Opera. My experience was horrible. That was years ago, and they probably (I hope!) fixed that since then, but it was certainly something that came with Opera for me.
But to do that, I'd have to use a Mac.
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.
As I said, I do understand the rationale. I honestly do. I resent it when software eliminates useful functionality on the rationale that it's "for my own good". I'll decide what's for my own good and what isn't, thank you. If the functionality is too dangerous for Joe Random to use, then make an about:config setting to enable it.
Unfortunately, unless the change isn't as bad as Mozilla says, or unless they pull a rabbit out of their hat at the last minute, it doesn't matter to me if this API change eliminates add-on breakage in the future, because I won't be using Firefox.
I've ruled out Brave because of how it handles ads.
type "about:config" in the address bar search for "extensions.legacy.enabled"
double-click it until it says "true"
That's it. Surely wise techies can muddle through such instructions?
Of course they can. Wise techies have also heard Mozilla when they said that config switch will not be there when 57 is actually released.
I already have, but that's a temporary measure.
I still haven't completed my assessment of the options, but right now, Pale Moon is looking most likely. If your prediction is correct, I may not have to change browsers. We'll see, but things are looking pretty grim.
I consider Classic Theme Restorer mandatory, and Mozilla says that something like that is simply impossible under the new scheme. If they make the UI configurable enough, I wouldn't need something like that. However, the entire direction of Firefox over the past couple of years has been away from allowing that amount of configurability, so it seems exceedingly unlikely that they'll have a change of heart this late in the game.
the time we had to register for a job at a state website and had to boot up XP with IE 6 as the site wouldn't render in any other browser and used VBScript.
Not only do I remember, I am being increasingly reminded -- the web is moving decidedly back to those days. I have to keep three browsers installed, because no one browser can handle all the web sites I need.
I'm just waiting for the "Best viewed with..." badges to return.
What am I missing, that someone else is getting all anxious over it?
Honest answer? This is describing me personally, but I suspect I'm not alone: I still use Firefox because it supports functionality that no other browser (aside from earlier versions/forks of Firefox) does.
I have also been using Firefox from the very beginning, and have a strong emotional connection with it.
When 57 hits and the functionality that I need goes away, I'll have to use something else. It's an emotional blow, A bit like losing the family pet. So the whole thing makes me feel sad and comes with a sense of loss.
DownThemAll is working off of an incorrect premise. (Chunk downloading hasn't been actually faster for a while.)
The reason I use DTA is not the chunk downloading, it's that DTA massively improves the entire process.
But I assume that there are other extensions that also fix the weaknesses of Firefox's download manager (I haven't actually checked), and that's why I don't consider it to be a showstopper issue.
OK.
I'll check back in with FF in 5 years, then.
From that post, it sounds to me like the main reason for blocking that add-on is that it was engaging in fraud by generating false clicks on ads.
Also, I note that you can change Pale Moon settings to allow the use of the extension, so it's not like it has been banned.
No, but the lesson equally shouldn't be "make it into a clone of the competition".
I couldn't even begin to imagine trusting any software coming from the 4chan crowd.
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.
Except that none of those are anything like good old Konq.
Yes, I used to use Konq a lot, and share your affection. But, at some point, it stopped working well enough to be usable.
(RAID is not a backup!)
I never said otherwise. I was talking about live reliability, not backups.
And, of course, if your RAID setups are in a third party server farm, you're in the same boat as people using google/aws/etc.
Not at all. If I have hardware sitting in a farm, and the farm goes down, I can still physically go there and retrieve my hard drives.
is far beyond the financial capabilities of the vast majority of small businesses and even many medium size businesses.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I manage it, and I'm not wealthy.
The hate on "the cloud" (the actual service, not the term) for its imperfections is just as irrational as hating on FedEx/UPS/USPS for their imperfections.
In a sense, yes. In another sense, it's understandable since cloud providers tend to sell themselves as being without such imperfections.
I never said it was impossible.
Then why are we debating? Since my only assertion was that it's possible and for some, the best option.
I don't "hate" on cloud services as a concept, by the way. My problem is twofold. First, I think that the way that cloudy companies market themselves is deceptive, and this "you can't do it as well as us" line is one of the deceptive sales tactics.
Second, I think that the way people are using the cloud is dangerous. They just ship their data off without thinking this stuff through, and then trust the companies entirely for security and reliability. Disaster looms down that path, sooner or later.
"The cloud" is, as you noted, nothing new at all. It used to be the way all computing was done. However, everyone seems to have forgotten that there are very real tradeoffs involved. The downsides of it are not insignificant -- which is why everyone rejoiced when microcomputers reduced the need for heavy iron.
Depends on the addon. The new API is much less powerful than the old, and some things that plugins can do right now won't be possible after 56. Classic Theme Restorer, for example, is impossible to replicate (according to Mozilla).
Overblown to you, perhaps. But for some people, like myself, this is not a small problem.
Current Firefox performance is awful compared to Chrome.
Perhaps -- I use Chrome as little as I can get away with, so I can't really compare the two.
However, personally, this doesn't matter even a little. FF performance is acceptable to me, and that there are browsers out there that are faster is only meaningful if they don't suck for me in other ways. Chrome definitely sucks for me in most ways.
And, going by everything that Mozilla has said about 57, Firefox will too.